Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Infant Behav Dev. 2019 Oct 17;57:101378. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.101378

Dyadic Synchrony Among Young Latina Mothers and Their Toddlers: The Role of Maternal and Child Behavior

Aimee T Hammer 1, Josefina M Grau 1, Stephanie G Silberman 1, Erin N Smith 1
PMCID: PMC6916644  NIHMSID: NIHMS1544490  PMID: 31629874

Abstract

Synchronous interactions are an important indicator of parent-child relationship quality with positive implications for child development. Latina adolescent mothers face several demographic challenges that place them at risk for less synchronous interactions. To identify factors that may facilitate more optimal parent-child relationships in this population, our study examined maternal sensitivity and children’s behavioral styles as joint predictors of dyadic synchrony among young Latina mothers and their toddlers. Mother-toddler dyads (N = 170) were observed interacting across different tasks, and toddlers’ behavior was observed during the administration of a developmental test. Results of multivariate regressions revealed additive effects of maternal sensitivity and child behavioral styles (i.e., dysregulation and positive attentional control). Maternal sensitivity related to higher dyadic synchrony for the entire sample. Positive attentional control was related to higher dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter dyads only. Although no gender differences in dyadic synchrony or the behavior style variables emerged, the relative contribution of maternal and child factors differed by child gender, suggesting that mothers may have responded differently to similar behavior and affect displayed by boys and girls. The findings provide insights regarding factors that contribute to dyadic synchrony in this understudied population and emphasize the need to consider child gender when studying parent-child interactions in young Latina families.

Keywords: Adolescent mothers, Latino families, Maternal Sensitivity, Child Temperamental Characteristics, Dyadic Synchrony, Toddlers

1. The role of maternal behavior and child characteristics in dyadic synchrony among young Latina mothers.

Adolescent motherhood occurs in a context of significant risk (e.g., low socioeconomic status [SES], low educational attainment) that contributes to parenting difficulties and in turn compromises child development (Berlin, Brady-Smith, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002; Mollborn & Denis, 2012). Nonetheless, research has documented substantial variability in parenting in this population, highlighting the need to uncover factors that facilitate positive parent-child relationships in these young families (Contreras, 2004). This is especially the case for adolescent mothers of Latina origin who have the highest birth rates in the U.S. (Martin, Hamilton, Osterman, Curtin, & Mathews, 2015). Moreover, most studies examining parenting in Latino families have relied on maternal reports of parenting or perceived parenting stress, rather than observations of their parenting interactions. Our paper leverages behavioral observations to identify maternal and child factors related to the dyadic quality of parent-child interactions of Latina adolescent mothers and their toddlers.

We focused specifically on dyadic synchrony, a bi-directional process characterized by harmonious and mutually responsive behavioral and emotional exchanges (Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Kochanska, 1997). Parent-child interactional styles characterized by mutuality serve at least two important functions in child development: increased communication competence and facilitation of autonomy and self-regulation (Harrist & Waugh, 2002). For example, these parent-child exchanges are associated with higher self-control (Kim & Kochanska, 2012), communication competence (Lindsey, Cremeens, Colwell, & Caldera, 2009), competent peer relationships (Lindsey, Cremeens, & Caldera, 2010), and fewer behavioral problems (Deater-Deckard & Petrill, 2004; Healey, Gopin, Grossman, Campbell, & Halperin, 2010).

Studies of adult, primarily middle-class European American (EA) mothers, have examined the contribution of either maternal or child factors to dyadic synchrony (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Feldman, 2003; Kim & Kochanska, 2012; Raver & Leadbeater, 1995). However, because they examined these factors separately (for an exception see Skuban, Shaw, Gardner, Supplee, & Nichols, 2006), little is known regarding their relative contributions to dyadic interactions. Guided by transactional frameworks emphasizing the active role of both the mother and the child (Kuczynski, 2003; Sameroff, 1975), we were particularly interested in examining how maternal and child factors converge to co-create the quality of the dyads’ interactional style. Moreover, given that cultural values and associated gender role expectations influence how mothers perceive and respond to their sons’ and daughters’ behavior (Eisenberg, 1999; Meléndez, 2005), the relative contributions of these factors to dyadic interactions likely vary across different cultural contexts, making it imperative to examine them across different populations. Regarding Latino culture specifically, research indicates that Latina families typically hold traditional gender role expectations and report differential socialization practices with boys and girls (Azmitia & Brown, 2002; Sanchez, Whittaker, Hamilton, & Arango, 2017). Thus, we also examined whether child gender modified how child characteristics contributed to the dyadic quality of the interactions.

1.1. Dyadic Synchrony

Conceptualizations of dyadic synchrony vary in the literature. Nonetheless, several lines of research converge to suggest a broad definition that encompasses mutually focused, reciprocal, and harmonious behavioral and verbal exchanges (Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Kochanska, 1997). A dyad’s ability to achieve and maintain smooth and coordinated exchanges promotes parent-child co-regulatory skills and self-efficacy. In contrast, a lack of synchrony indicates a dyad’s difficulty repairing mismatches in behavioral states and has negative implications for children’s adjustment (Lindsey & Caldera, 2015).

Measurement of dyadic synchrony also varies in the literature. Some researchers proposed that shared affect is an essential aspect of dyadic synchrony (Cole, Tei, & Zahn-Waxler, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995), whereas others suggested that dyads can achieve dyadic synchrony in the absence of positive affect (Gottman & DeClaire, 1997). Thus, it is unclear whether shared affect should be considered an essential component of synchrony. Often, scholars used operationalizations of synchrony that integrate several interactional components, such as reciprocity, shared affect, conversation, or joint attention, with some studies measuring multiple components of synchrony separately and others using a single global measure (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Kim & Kochanska, 2012; Lindsey & Caldera, 2015). Additionally, some studies assessed synchrony in either structured (e.g., teaching) or unstructured (e.g., free play) tasks, whereas others examined it across multiple tasks.

1.2. Factors that Contribute to Dyadic Synchrony

Maternal sensitivity (i.e., the ability to accurately interpret children’s cues and respond in a timely manner; Ainsworth et al., 1978) and children’s temperamental characteristics are the most commonly studied maternal and child factors in relation to dyadic synchrony. Overall, most of this research examined these contributing factors in EA and African American (AA) families, focusing on either maternal behavior or child factors separately.

1.2.1. Maternal Sensitivity.

Prior conceptualizations suggesting that maternal sensitivity facilitates reciprocal and jointly satisfying mother-infant interactions guided our interest in the unique relation between maternal sensitivity and dyadic synchrony (Hane, Feldstein, & Dernetz, 2003). Maternal sensitivity is considered by some as an essential aspect of synchrony given that sensitive mothers are better able to respond promptly and appropriately to children’s cues (Kochanska, Forman, & Coy, 1999). Nonetheless, only a few studies examined the relation between maternal sensitivity and dyadic measures of parent-child interactions, and only one considered the role of both sensitivity and child factors. These studies used behavioral observations of parenting behaviors and were conducted during infancy and toddlerhood. Three studies included AA families and only one included Puerto Rican (PR) and adolescent families.

Overall, the research generally found that sensitivity was related to higher levels of synchrony (Hane et al., 2003; Kochanska et al., 1999; Skuban et al., 2006). For example, in a study of young AA and PR families, Raver and Leadbeater (1995) found that dyads with mothers who displayed higher levels of sensitivity also displayed more reciprocal bidding sequences and joint attention within a free play interaction. The only study that examined the relation between maternal behavior and dyadic synchrony in the context of child characteristics (e.g., language abilities and frustration tolerance) found that maternal nurturance was uniquely related to higher levels of synchrony in a sample of EA and AA mother-son dyads (Skuban et al., 2006). These studies typically report small to moderate associations between sensitivity and synchrony-related constructs, which is to be expected given that sensitivity is a unidirectional measure that does not fully capture children’s contributions. The current study aimed to replicate the link between sensitivity and synchrony and provide further validation by also examining this relation considering the contribution of child behavioral characteristics to the quality of the dyadic interaction in a sample of young Latina mothers and their toddlers.

1.2.2. Child Temperamental Characteristics.

In line with transactional frameworks, we examined the relative contribution of children’s behavioral styles to dyadic synchrony beyond that of maternal sensitivity (Sameroff, 1975; Kuczynski, 2003). Children’s behavioral styles elicit behavioral and affective responses from their mothers, in turn influencing the quality of their mother-child interactions. For example, children who have a difficult time adapting to changes in their environment or have difficulty modulating their frustration spend more time in dysregulated states, elicit less sensitive maternal behavior, and make it more difficult for the dyad to sustain synchrony or repair mismatched states (Calkins, 1994; Campbell, 1979; Kim & Kochanska, 2012). In contrast, children who have an engaging style and display more positive affect during interactions elicit positive and responsive maternal behavior, making it more likely to achieve and maintain mother-child dyadic synchrony (Calkins, 2002; Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002; Owens, Shaw, & Vondra, 1998; Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner, 2004).

The few studies that examined associations between children’s’ behavioral styles and synchrony-related constructs used primarily behavioral observations of child temperamental characteristics, with some using aggregates of behavioral codes and maternal report (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Feldman, 2003; Kim & Kochanska, 2012; Skuban et al., 2006). Additionally, this research included predominantly EA and Israeli families, with no studies of Latino families or dyads with young mothers. Overall, negative temperamental characteristics, including negative emotionality and low frustration tolerance, were related to lower levels of dyadic synchrony and related constructs (Feldman, 2003; Kim & Kochanska, 2012). In the only study that tested maternal and child factors simultaneously, low frustration tolerance was correlated with lower mother-son dyadic synchrony but did not have a unique effect beyond maternal behavior (Skuban et al., 2006). Research on positive temperamental characteristics has demonstrated that traits such as positive emotionality, task orientation, positive arousal, and social orientation are associated with higher levels of synchrony-related variables (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Feldman, 2003).

1.2.3. Role of Child Gender in the Relation between Child Temperamental Characteristics and Dyadic Synchrony.

We expected the relation between children’s behavioral styles and dyadic synchrony to vary by gender given that Latina families tend to hold traditional gender role expectations that may influence how mothers respond to their sons’ and daughters’ behavior and affective expressions (Azmitia & Brown, 2002; Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005; Eisenberg, 1999). Gender-based emotion socialization theories suggest that overall, mothers are more accepting of the expression of negative affect (e.g., anger and frustration) from boys than girls and expect and encourage positivity and engagement from girls more than boys (Biringen, Robinson, & Emde, 1994; Gunnar & Donahue, 1980; Wasserman & Lewis, 1985). Moreover, research, conducted primarily with EA families, indicates that mothers attend to boys and girls in ways that reinforce these gender role-consistent emotions (Fivush, 1989). For example, Radke-Yarrow and Kochanska (1990) found that mothers attend to boys’ anger with attentive concern and ignore or respond firmly to girls’ anger. Mothers also tend to respond more contingently to boys’ smiles than girls’ smiles and respond with expressions that are more dissimilar to girls than to boys (Malatesta & Haviland, 1982). Consistently, in the only study that examined gender as a moderator of the relation between temperamental characteristics and synchrony, Feldman (2003) found that, in Israeli families, higher negative emotionality related to lower dyadic synchrony for girls and not for boys. These findings suggest that expression of negative affect, especially anger, and lack of engagement may be more disruptive for mother-daughter than mother-son synchrony. We expected that these gender effects would be especially apparent in Latina families given that gender role expectations for Latino boys and girls are typically “more traditional” than those in EA families (Azmitia & Brown, 2002; Sanchez, Whittaker, Hamilton, & Arango, 2017).

1.3. Current Study

Our study tested the relative contributions of maternal sensitivity and child behavioral styles to the level of dyadic synchrony displayed by Latina adolescent mothers and their toddlers. We tested these associations during toddlerhood, a period in which children become more active interactional partners and engage in more autonomy seeking behaviors (Forman, 2007; Harrist & Waugh, 2002). These developmental changes influence the dynamics of dyadic interactions and may be especially challenging for young mothers who are also developing their own sense of autonomy (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). This period is also especially relevant for studying gender effects, in that mothers may respond differently to sons’ and daughters’ emergent autonomous behaviors.

We measured dyadic synchrony in a semi-structured free play task and were interested in capturing both the reciprocal nature of the behavioral exchanges and the affective tone. We adopted a commonly used operational definition of dyadic synchrony from Lindsey and colleagues (2009) that includes scales to micro-analytically code dyadic behavioral reciprocity and the affect displayed by each dyad member. Using these scales, and consistent with previous research, we developed a measure reflecting the extent to which the dyads engaged in reciprocal and mutually positive exchanges (Kochanska, 1997; Kochanska et al., 1999). Based on the literature (e.g., Hane et al., 2003; Kochanska et al., 1999; Skuban et al., 2006), we expected that dyads with more sensitive mothers would display higher levels of synchrony. We also expected that children’s behavioral styles would contribute to dyadic synchrony beyond sensitivity, such that behavioral styles reflecting difficulty adapting to changes and modulating frustration would be related to lower synchrony, and that engaging, and more positive behavioral styles would be associated with higher synchrony. Furthermore, given research demonstrating mothers respond differently to boys’ and girls’ emotional and behavioral expressions, we hypothesized that both negative and positive behavioral styles would play a larger role in dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter than mother-son dyads. Finally, as part of a more exploratory aim, we tested whether maternal sensitivity and children’s behavioral styles showed differential relations to individual synchrony composites (i.e., behavioral reciprocity and shared affect; Hane et al., 2003; Kochanska et al., 1999).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants included 170 Latina adolescent mothers and their 18-month-old toddlers. The mothers’ mean age was 17.9 years (SD = 1.3) at the child’s birth. The mean age of the children was 18.2 months (SD=.94); 45.9% of them were female and 84.7% were the first or only child. Most of the mothers were of PR origin (82.8%); the rest were of Mexican (7.1%), and Central or South American (10.1%) origin. Mothers had either completed schooling up to eighth grade (9.5%), tenth grade (34%), earned their high school diploma (42.9%), or completed at least some post-secondary education (13.6%). Additionally, 25.9% of mothers were attending school, and 41.2% were employed. Nearly 55% of the mothers were born in the U.S. mainland. Families resided in low-income neighborhoods, and most (89.4%) reported receiving government assistance. Due to equipment malfunction or low recording quality, five participants had one missing data point on one of the observed variables. The sample means were used for each of the respective variables to retain the complete sample for analyses.

2.2. Procedure

The study received Institutional Review Board approval. Participants were recruited in community clinics (78.2%) in low-income Latino neighborhoods in a large Midwestern city or referred by friends, self, or professionals (21.8%). Mothers were eligible if they were 19-years-old or younger at the birth of the child. Families were excluded if the child was born prematurely or with significant medical problems. Two female researchers (at least one was bilingual) conducted home visits and obtained informed consent from the participant, and from a parent if she was a minor. Researchers administered a standardized developmental test to the children, assisted mothers with questionnaires, and guided the dyads through video-recorded interactions.

2.3. Measures

All measures were based on behavioral observations and were coded by separate sets of research assistants who were blind to other participant data. For all scales, research assistants were trained to criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .80) and overlapped on 22-25% of observations to assess agreement. All scales were rated on 5- or 9-point Likert-type scales and inter-rater agreement was calculated using ICCs. Observed ICCs for each measure are reported below. Based on guidelines set forth by Koo and Li (2016), all measures had moderate (.50-.75) to good (.75-.90) reliability.

2.3.1. Maternal sensitivity.

Maternal sensitivity was coded during a 5-minute social play episode in which mothers were asked to play with their child as they usually would without toys. Sensitivity was characterized by warm and responsive behavior that was well-timed and reflected empathy for the child’s needs and feelings. The 9-point Sensitivity scale was derived from Isabella (1993) and adapted for the current population. Previous studies with Latina adolescent mothers demonstrated adequate reliability for this scale (Contreras, 2004; Contreras, Mangelsdorf, Rhodes, Diener, & Brunson, 1999). A highly insensitive mother (coded ‘1’) was characterized by inappropriate responses to the child’s signals (e.g., mother acted according to her own wishes, and only responded to child’s signals if they were intense). A highly sensitive mother (coded ‘9’) was characterized by highly appropriate, prompt, and sensitive responses to the child’s needs (e.g., mother attempted to prevent problems by predicting child’s moods and behaviors or offered alternatives). Inter-rater reliability was moderate (ICC = .70).

2.3.2. Child behavioral styles.

We assessed behavioral styles from video recordings of the administration of the cognitive scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development using seven subscales of the Bayley Infant Behavior Record (BSID; Bayley 1993; 2006). The scales (Interest in Test Materials and Stimuli, Initiative with Tasks, Attention to Tasks, Persistence in Attempting to Complete Tasks, Enthusiasm Toward Tasks, Adaptation to Change in Test Materials, and Frustration with Inability to Complete Tasks) have been used to asses child temperamental characteristics in prior research (Gaertner, Spinard, & Eisenberg, 2008; Goodrich, Mudrick, & Robinson, 2015; Lemery- Chalfant, Doelger, & Goldsmith, 2008). Inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to good (ICCs = .67 - .85).

Given that previous literature has not used these scales in children of Latina or young mothers, we used exploratory factor analysis to derive composites of child behavioral styles. We submitted the seven scales to a principal axis factoring analysis with a direct oblimin rotation (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Two factors emerged with Eigenvalues greater than one. The first factor (42% of variance) had positive loadings for the scales, initiation (.79), interest (.77), attention (.50), and enthusiasm toward tasks (.40). These scores were aggregated and reflected an underlying behavioral style we termed ‘positive attentional control.’ Children with higher scores showed greater positive engagement and sustained attention to the examiner and the tasks. Adaptation to change (.71; reverse coded) and frustration tolerance (.67; reverse coded) loaded on the second factor (16.9% of variance). These scores were aggregated and reflect an underlying behavioral style we termed ‘dysregulation’. Children who scored higher in dysregulation displayed more frustration and were less able to adjust to repeated changes in test materials. Persistence did not load onto either factor and was not included in the analyses.

2.3.3. Dyadic synchrony.

Behavioral reciprocity and mother and child affect were coded from a 10-minute unstructured free play episode in which mothers were asked to play with their toddlers as they usually would with a set of developmentally appropriate toys. Following previous work, coders rated behavioral reciprocity and mother and child emotion every 30-seconds using a 5-point rating scale. The 30-second intervals allowed for the consideration of mother and child antecedents and responses to each other as well as the frequency and intensity of each behavior (Lindsey et al., 2009; Lindsey et al., 1997).

2.3.3.1. Behavioral reciprocity.

Behavioral reciprocity was characterized by the extent to which mother and child engaged in mutually focused (e.g., attention of mother and child was on the same object), reciprocal (e.g., mother and child’s actions were matched in terms of the activity), and harmonious verbal and behavioral exchanges (Lindsey et al., 2009). A dyad received a rating of ‘1’ if they did not share a common focus, or if either partner ignored the other (e.g., one partner spent most of the time watching the other; one partner verbally interrupted the other). A dyad received a ‘2’ if they displayed brief moments of common focus or coordinated behaviors (e.g., mother and child matched each other’s gaze or passed an object back and forth). Dyads received a score of ‘3’ if they displayed moderate amounts of behavioral reciprocity (i.e., relatively equal levels of smooth flowing, coordinated interaction and disjointed exchanges for approximately half of the segment). A dyad was assigned a rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ if they displayed smooth-flowing interactions and responsiveness to the other’s cues for most of the 30-second segment. Inter-rater reliability was moderate (ICC = .70).

Following previous work, we dichotomized behavioral reciprocity ratings (Kochanska et al., 1999; Lindsey et al., 2009). Segments that showed no or minimal evidence of behavioral reciprocity (i.e., a score of ‘1’ or ‘2’) were coded a ‘0’, whereas segments that showed at least moderate amounts of smooth flowing interactions (i.e., a ‘3’ or higher) received a ‘1.’ Finally, the segments were summed and divided by the total number of segments to reflect the percentage of time each dyad displayed reciprocity.

2.3.3.2. Mother and child positive affect.

Mother and child positive affect were coded using two 5-point scales. Positive affect was characterized by the presence and intensity of positive emotion, expressed verbally or behaviorally. For both mothers and children, a rating of ‘1’ indicated an absence of positive emotion. A rating of ‘2,’ reflected at least moderate amounts of positive affect (e.g., smiles, chuckles, or warm tone). A rating of ‘3’ indicated the presence of positive affect for approximately half of the segment or brief moments of intense positive affect (e.g., dancing, laughing, or affection). A rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ reflected displays of intense, sustained positive affect for most or all the segment. Inter-rater reliability was good for mother positive affect (ICC = .78) and child positive affect (ICC = .80).

To derive mutual positive affect, a dichotomized variable representing segments in which both members displayed at least some positive affect was created (i.e., ‘0’ indicated no mutual positive affect and ‘1’ indicated presence of mutual positive affect at a ‘2’ or higher for each individual). From this variable, segments were summed and divided by the total number of segments to represent the percentage of time dyads displayed mutual positive affect.

2.3.3.3. Derivation of dyadic synchrony composite.

We used the dichotomized reciprocity and mutual positive affect variables to create a dyadic synchrony composite. Specifically, we summed the segments in which the dyads displayed both reciprocity and mutual positive affect and divided it by the total number of segments. The dyadic synchrony variable reflects the percentage of segments in which the dyad displayed both reciprocity and mutual positive affect.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Analyses

We first provide descriptive information regarding the main study variables and the intercorrelations among predictor variables and the dyadic synchrony variables. We then present hierarchical regression analyses examining the unique and moderated (by child gender) effects of maternal sensitivity and child behavioral styles on dyadic synchrony1. We created interaction terms using centered variables and tested each interaction individually while controlling for all other variables. Significant interactions were probed using the PROCESS computational tool (Hayes & Matthews, 2009). Lastly, we computed parallel hierarchical regressions to test predictors of each individual component of dyadic synchrony.

3.2. Descriptive Information

Table 1 includes descriptive information and bivariate correlations for main study variables. Mean levels of the dyadic synchrony variables indicated that dyads displayed at least moderate levels of behavioral reciprocity for 53% of the time, mutual positive affect approximately 42%, and dyadic synchrony 25% of the time. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Lindsey & Caldera, 2015), higher levels of reciprocity were associated with higher levels of mutual positive affect. Both sensitivity and positive attentional control were significantly correlated with dyadic synchrony. Higher dysregulation was moderately correlated with lower positive attentional control, and dysregulation was not associated with dyadic synchrony. Consistent with some previous research, maternal sensitivity was not correlated with positive attentional control or dysregulation (Skuban et al., 2006).

Table 1.

Descriptive Information and Bivariate Correlations Among Main Variables and Control Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Child gender -
2. Maternal sensitivity .16* -
3. Child dysregulation .01 .03 -
4. Child positive attentional control .10 .00 −.39** -
5. Behavioral reciprocitya .15* .21** −.02 .04 -
6. Mutual positive affecta −.06 .23** −.07 .19* .21** -
7. Dyadic synchronya .00 .28*** −.06 .16* .61*** .82*** -
Mean - 4.94 1.73 3.61 .53 .42 .26
Standard Deviation - 1.15 .73 .56 .20 .22 .18
Range - 3-8 1-4 2-4.75 .00-.89 .00-.95 .00-.83
Open in a new tab

Note. (N = 170).

a

Variables measured as proportions. Predictor variables were standardized in all analyses but for ease of interpretation, all means presented are based on raw scores.

†

p < .10

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

In regard to gender, t-tests indicated that mothers of girls displayed more sensitivity (M = 5.13, SD = 1.14) than those of boys (M = 4.77, SD = 1.13); t(168) = −2.03, p = .04). Additionally, mother-daughter dyads achieved behavioral reciprocity more often (M = .57, SD = .20) than mother-son dyads (M = .51, SD = .20); t(168) = −2.02, p = .05). No significant differences emerged for positive attentional control, dysregulation, or dyadic synchrony.

3.3. Multivariate Associations

Hierarchical linear regressions tested the unique effects of maternal sensitivity and each behavioral style on dyadic synchrony (Table 2). Child gender was entered in the first block in the analysis. Maternal sensitivity, positive attentional control, and dysregulation were entered into the second and third blocks respectively, to determine their unique incremental variance in dyadic synchrony given research that placed a larger emphasis on the role of maternal behavior in parent-child interactions (Table 2; Model 1). The association between child gender and dyadic synchrony was not significant. Additionally, maternal sensitivity and positive attentional control were each associated with higher dyadic synchrony; dysregulation was not associated with dyadic synchrony.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Dyadic Synchrony from Maternal Sensitivity and Child Behavioral Composites.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables R2Δ B SE B β R2Δ B SE B β R2Δ B SE B β
Controls 0 0 0
 Child gender −.02 .03 −.06 −.02 .03 −.06 .02 .03 −.06
Maternal Behavior .08*** .08*** .08***
 Maternal sensitivity .05 .01 .29*** .05 .01 .28*** .05 .01 .26**
Child Behavior .03† .03† .03†
 DYS 0 .01 −.01 .04 .03 .15 −.01 .02 −.02
 PAC .03 .01 .16* .03 .01 .17* −.01 .02 −.03
Interactions .02* .04**
 DYS × gender −.08 .04 −.21*
 PAC × gender .13 .05 .27**
Open in a new tab

Note.

†

p < .10

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001. DYS denotes dysregulation and PAC denotes positive attentional control.

Next, we tested the interactions between gender and dysregulation and positive attentional control separately. Variables were entered in the same order as before and the interaction terms (i.e., dysregulation × gender and positive attentional control × gender) were entered separately in the fourth block for Models 2 and 3 respectively (Table 2). Both interactions were significant and simple slope analyses for dysregulation (Figure 1) revealed that the slopes were in opposite directions, but neither was significantly different from zero (boys = t(1,164) = 1.37, p = .17; girls= t(1,164) = −1.53, p = .13). Simple slope analyses for positive attentional control (Figure 2) revealed that it was significantly related to higher dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter dyads (t(1,164) = 3.38, p < .001) and not mother-son dyads (t(1,164) = −.26, p = .79).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Moderation of child gender on the relation between dysregulation and dyadic synchrony.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Moderation of child gender on the relation between positive attentional control and dyadic synchrony. ***p < .001.

Parallel regressions tested the associations of sensitivity and child behavior on mutual positive affect and behavioral reciprocity separately (complete results are not tabled and are available from authors). Variables were entered in the same way as in primary analyses. Results for mutual positive affect indicated that sensitivity was associated with higher mutual positive affect (β = .24, B = .05, SE = .01, p = .001). The interactions between child gender and each child behavior variable were also significant (dysregulation β = −.24, B = −.11, SE = .05, p = .02 and positive attentional control β = .27, B = .16, SE = .06, p = .008, respectively). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between dysregulation and mutual positive affect approached significance for girls (t(1,164) = −1.70, p = .09), and was not significant for boys (t(1,164) = 1.58, p = .12). Similarly, positive attentional control was significantly associated with higher mutual positive affect for girls (t(1,164) = 3.65, p < .001) and not boys (t(1,164) = .14, p = .88). Regarding regressions predicting behavioral reciprocity, maternal sensitivity was associated with higher behavioral reciprocity (β = .19, B = .04, SE = .02, p = .01). Neither child behavior variable was associated with behavioral reciprocity, and interactions between gender and both child behavior variables were also nonsignificant. Overall, maternal sensitivity related to both components of dyadic synchrony for the whole sample, positive attentional control related to mutual positive affect for girls only, and dysregulation showed a small association with mutual positive affect for mother-daughter dyads.

4. Discussion

Our study provides insight regarding factors that contribute to a highly competent interaction style among Latina adolescent mothers and their toddlers, an understudied, yet at-risk population. Following a transactional perspective, we extended the literature by examining the relative contributions of maternal and child factors to the dyadic quality of their interactions. We found that maternal and child factors were uniquely related to the level of synchrony displayed by young mother-toddler dyads. Maternal sensitivity was related to dyadic synchrony similarly for boys and girls, providing some evidence of generalizability of previous findings based primarily on EA, low-risk families. However, consistent with our predictions, the relations between children’s behavioral styles and synchrony were moderated by child gender. Specifically, child positive attentional control was related to dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter dyads only. Mother-son and mother-daughter dyads achieved similar levels of synchrony, and boys and girls displayed similar levels of dysregulation and positive attentional control. Thus, the pattern of results suggests that mothers responded differentially to similar behavior and affect based on the gender of the child and highlight the need to consider gender when studying predictors of parent-child interactions in young Latina families.

Consistent with our hypotheses and previous research, mothers that displayed more sensitivity during social play were more likely to achieve dyadic synchrony with their toddlers than less sensitive mothers, even when accounting for children’s behavioral styles. We also found that mothers’ display of sensitivity was related to higher levels of both behavioral reciprocity and mutual positive affect, suggesting that sensitivity influences behavioral and affective aspects of parent-child interactions. Previous research in EA and Latino samples has shown that children of more sensitive mothers are more responsive during mother-child interactions, which in turn may facilitate the dyads’ ability to sustain reciprocal and affectively positive interactions for more prolonged periods of time (Contreras et al., 1999; Kochanska, 1997). In addition to replicating the link between sensitivity and dyadic synchrony in a different SES and ethnic group, our study extended previous literature by demonstrating that more sensitive mothers achieve higher levels of dyadic synchrony regardless of the child’s level of dysregulation or positive attentional control.

Dysregulation and positive attentional control had unique, albeit moderated, associations with dyadic synchrony beyond maternal sensitivity, extending previous literature that has primarily examined mother and child factors separately. Consistent with our predictions that children’ behavioral styles would have a stronger influence on dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter than mother-son dyads, girls’ but not boys’ levels of positive attentional control were related to dyadic synchrony. This finding is in line with previous work demonstrating that children’s positive temperamental characteristics are related to higher levels of dyadic synchrony, although these studies did not report testing differences by gender (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Feldman, 2003). In contrast, dysregulation was not associated with dyadic synchrony for girls or boys. The lack of an association for mother-son dyads is consistent with those of Skuban and collaborators’ (2006) study of mother-son dyads, that found boys’ frustration tolerance did not contribute uniquely to the prediction of dyadic synchrony. It is also important to interpret the lack of finding in light of the relatively low levels of dysregulation displayed by the toddlers in our sample. Nonetheless, the lack of association could be due to what previous work has proposed regarding the strong influence of other positive factors. Specifically, Kim and Kochanska (2012) found that infant negative emotionality was not a vulnerability factor for self-regulation when considered with other predictors such as maternal sensitivity and responsiveness. Although we cannot directly compare our results to those reported in Kim and Kochanska (2012), it is possible that our results lend themselves to the idea that in some interactional contexts, warm and sensitive parenting may counteract the consequences of children’s dysregulation.

We also examined whether dysregulation and positive attentional control were associated with each of the synchrony composites and whether these relations were different for boys and girls. We found that girls’ but not boys’ levels of dysregulation and positive attentional control were related to mutual positive affect. This is consistent with Feldman’s (2003) study that demonstrated that the relation between infant negative emotionality and matching affective states was more pronounced for mother-daughter dyads than mother-son dyads. In understanding these differential associations based on gender, it is important to consider that mothers displayed higher levels of sensitivity toward girls than boys, and mother-daughter dyads achieved higher levels of behavioral reciprocity than mother-son dyads. In contrast, boys and girls displayed similar levels of dysregulation and positive attentional control and achieved similar levels of dyadic synchrony and mutual positive affect with their mothers. This pattern of results suggests that mothers responded differently to similar behavior and affect displayed by boys and girls. They are also consistent with research demonstrating that mothers respond more negatively to daughters’ negative expressions and less negatively (or neutrally) to sons’ negative expressions (Caughy, Peredo, Owen, & Mills, 2016; Haviland, 1977), suggesting that higher levels of dysregulation may be more detrimental for mother-daughter dyads than mother-son dyads (Malatesta & Haviland, 1982; Radke-Yarrow & Kochanska, 1990).

Although we cannot determine the reason for these gender effects, they are in line with our conceptualization that traditional Latina mothers may reinforce gender-role consistent behaviors by interacting in ways that encourage the display of positivity and engagement in their daughters. Consistent with gender role expectations, the fact that mother-son and mother-daughter dyads achieved similar levels of synchrony suggests that mothers may have been more accepting of their son’s negative reactions, as they appear to have accommodated their responses to their sons’ negative reactions in ways that did not reduce synchrony. These gender effects may be particularly salient during toddlerhood given that children become more active interactional partners and engage in more autonomy seeking behaviors (Forman, 2007).

Given that the moderating role of gender has seldom been studied, it is unclear whether these differences in how child characteristics relate to dyadic synchrony are unique to Latina mothers. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that they would be more pronounced in populations that endorse more traditional gender role expectations (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007; Suarez-Orozco & Qin, 2006). To further the understanding of the processes through which mother-daughter and mother-son dyads establish dyadic synchrony, an important next step would be to examine the impact of culturally-based gender role expectations on mothers’ behavior and affect during interactions with their sons and daughters.

Our study also provided information regarding levels of synchrony in an at-risk population. The study we adopted our measurement of synchrony from reported moderate levels (M = 2.62; 1-5 scale) of behavioral reciprocity and high levels of mutual positive affect (85% of the time) in a sample of middle-class EA families (Lindsey et al., 2009). In comparison, our dyads achieved commensurate levels of behavioral reciprocity (53% of the time) and lower levels of mutual positive affect (42% of the time). Lindsey et al., (2009) did not compute a global dyadic composite as the one we created in our study, so we cannot compare our results for dyadic synchrony to theirs. Although it is considered normative for dyads to have periods of asynchrony (Harrist & Waugh, 2002), the average level for our sample (dyads achieved dyadic synchrony about 25% of the time) was relatively low compared to that reported for similar global measures in studies of low-risk families (Kochanska et al., 1999). Overall, these results are in line with the fact that young mothers are at risk for less sensitive parenting (Berlin et al., 2002) and suggest they may have a relatively harder time achieving mutually positive interactions compared to reciprocal behavioral exchanges with their toddlers.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

The current study used a cross-sectional design, which limited our ability to draw conclusions regarding the direction of the associations we found. Although we tested maternal and child characteristics as predictors in our analyses, future research with longitudinal data could investigate the reciprocal nature of these constructs. It is likely that these predictors shape the levels of synchrony displayed by mother-child dyads, and that, in turn, these dyadic interactions influence maternal and child behavior. It is also likely that as children continue to gain autonomy, the ways in which individual behaviors and characteristics influence parent-child relationships will change.

Our global measure of dyadic synchrony demonstrated some evidence of validity in that maternal and child characteristics were associated with reciprocal and mutually positive interactions in expected ways. However, future studies should also examine how this measure of synchrony relates to child adjustment across time. For instance, an important future direction is to test whether a global measure of dyadic synchrony helps predict children’s development beyond the contributions of the individual components. Additionally, our measure of synchrony included mutual positive affect, which consistent with previous work, may be particularly relevant when assessing free-play interactions. However, it is important to note that this operationalization may not capture important aspects of the parent-child relationship in other interactional contexts. Future efforts to provide a more comprehensive measure of the complexities of parent-child interactions and their implications for child adjustment are well warranted. A global construct that includes other ranges of affect (e.g., neutral) may be helpful when examining dyadic synchrony in other contexts such as teaching or clean-up tasks.

Although the scales we used to code child behavior (Bayley, 1993; 2006) have been often used to assess temperamental characteristics (Gaertner et al., 2008; Goodrich et al., 2015; Lemery-Chalfant et al., 2008), they are not considered the gold standard to assess child temperament. In addition, our scales did not capture negative emotionality beyond that reflected in children’s low frustration tolerance. It would be important to replicate the study findings relying on established behavioral paradigms to assess temperamental characteristics.

Our study is among the first to assess mother-child interactions from a dyadic perspective in Latina families, and our sample is relatively homogenous (e.g., largely Puerto Rican and from low-income neighborhoods in a mid-western city). Therefore, it is important to replicate the findings in samples representing Latino families in other areas of the U.S., and various SES levels and countries of origin. Furthermore, we cannot determine whether some findings are due to the specific ethnicity and/or the age of mothers in our sample. Although it is reasonable to expect that the differential findings by gender are more strongly related to the mothers’ ethnicity than their young age, it is also important to replicate these findings in samples of adult mothers. Overall, future research should examine more specifically the role of culture (e.g., cultural orientation and cultural values such as familismo and respeto) and Latino gender socialization practices in how child gender influences the contingencies within mother-child interactions.

4.2. Summary

Given that Latino children make up a large percent of the U.S. population (Flores, 2017), it is critical to uncover factors that facilitate high-quality parent-child relationships and more optimal child development in this population. Our results contribute to the understanding of the relative influence of maternal and child factors on the dyadic synchrony displayed by young Latina mothers and their toddlers. The results for child behavioral styles highlight the importance of considering the role of child gender in Latina mother-child interactions and suggest that the processes through which mother-daughter and mother-son dyads achieve dyadic synchrony differ. More generally, our results, together with prior literature demonstrating differences in parenting and socialization across ethnic/racial groups (Azmitia & Brown, 2002; Raver, Gershoff, & Aber, 2007), underscore the need for future studies to consider cultural characteristics that may impact the way mother and child factors influence parent-child interactions in different cultural contexts, rather than assume universality across populations. Understanding how these factors work together to influence synchrony across different groups can inform both developmental theories and intervention efforts targeted at specific populations.

Highlights.

  • Maternal and child characteristics were uniquely related to the level of synchrony displayed by the young Latina mother-toddler dyads.

  • Maternal sensitivity related to higher dyadic synchrony and each of its components for the entire sample.

  • Positive attentional control was related to higher dyadic synchrony for mother-daughter dyads only.

  • Dysregulation was related to mother-daughter mutual positive affect, but to a lesser extent than positive attentional control.

  • The findings provide insights regarding factors that contribute to dyadic synchrony in this understudied population and emphasize the need to consider child gender when studying parent-child interactions in young Latina families.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this article was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01HD46554 to the second author. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We thank the families who participated in the study, and all graduate and undergraduate students who were involved with the project.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1

We explored interactions of maternal sensitivity and gender on dyadic synchrony and the individual components. None were significant and are not included. Results are available from authors.

References

  1. Ainsworth MD, Blehar MC, Waters E, & Wall S (1978). Patterns of attachment: assessed in the strange situation and at home. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  2. Azmitia M, & Brown JR (2002). Latino immigrant parents’ beliefs about the “path of life” of their adolescent children In Contreras JM, Kerns KA, Neal-Barnett AM, (Eds.), Latino Children and Families in the United States: Current Research and Future Directions. (77–106). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayley N (1993). Manual of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayley N (2006). Manual of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berlin LJ, Brady-Smith C, & Brooks-Gunn J (2002). Links between childbearing age and observed maternal behaviors with 14-month-olds in the early head start research and evaluation project. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(1-2), 104–129. 10.1002/imhj.10007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Biringen Z, Robinson JL, & Emde RN (1994). Maternal sensitivity in the second year: Gender- based relations in the dyadic balance of control. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(1), 78–90. 10.1037/h0079487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calkins SD (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2- 3), 53–72. 10.2307/1166138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Calkins SD (2002). Does aversive behavior during toddlerhood matter? The effects of difficult temperament on maternal perceptions and behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 23(4), 381–402. 10.1002/imhj.10024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell SBG (1979). Mother-infant interaction as a function of maternal ratings of temperament. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10(2), 67–76. 10.1007/BF01433498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Caughy MO, Peredo TN, Owen MT, & Mills B (2016). Gender differences in the relation between mothering behaviors and child-behavior problems among Hispanic preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 52(4), 592–598. doi: 10.1037/a0040075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaplin TM, Cole PM, & Zahn-Waxler C (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5(1), 80–88. 10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cole PM, Teti LO, & Zahn-Waxler C (2003). Mutual emotion regulation and the stability of conduct problems between preschool and early school age. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 1–18. 10.1017/S0954579403000014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Contreras JM (2004). Parenting behaviors among mainland Puerto Rican adolescent mothers: the role of grandmother and partner involvement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 341–368. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.00078.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Contreras JM, Mangelsdorf SC, Rhodes JE, Diener ML, & Brunson L (1999). Parent-child interaction among Latina adolescent mothers: the role of family and social support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(4), 417–439. 10.1207/s15327795jra0904_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Costello AB, & Osborne JW (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1.1.110.9154 [Google Scholar]
  16. Deater-Deckard K, & O'Connor TG (2000). Parent–child mutuality in early childhood: two behavioral genetic studies. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 561–570. 10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Deater-Deckard K, & Petrill SA (2004). Parent–child dyadic mutuality and child behavior problems: an investigation of gene–environment processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(6), 1171–1179. 10.1111/J.1469-7610.2004.00309.X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Eisenberg AR (1999). Emotion talk among Mexican American and Anglo American mothers and children from two social classes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 267–284. [Google Scholar]
  19. Feldman R (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: the coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1–23. 10.1002/Imhj.10041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fivush R (1998). Methodological challenges in the study of emotional socialization. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 280–283. 10.1207/S15327965pli0904_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Flores A, (2017). How the U.S. Hispanic population is changing. Pew Research Center; Retrieved from https://pewrsr.ch/2wBy0qS. [Google Scholar]
  22. Forman DR (2007). Autonomy, compliance, and internalization. socioemotional development in the toddler years 285–319. In Brownell CA, & Kopp CB (Eds.), Socioemotional Development in The Toddler Years: Transitions and Transformations. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaertner B, Spinard T, & Eisenberg N (2008). Focused attention in toddlers: Measurement, stability, and relations to negative emotion and parenting. Infant and Child Development: An International Jounral of Research and Practice, 17(4), 339–363. 10.1002/Icd.580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodrich S, Mudrick H, & Robinson J (2015). The transition from early child care to preschool: emerging toddler skills and readiness for group-based learning. Early Education and Development, 26(7), 1035–1056. 10.1080/10409289.2015.1006978 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gottman JM, & DeClaire J (1997). The heart of parenting: Raising an emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guilamo-Ramos V, Dittus P, Jaccard J, Johansson M, Bouris A, & Acosta N (2007). Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work, 52(1), 17–30. 10.1093/sw/52.1.17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gunnar MR, & Donahue M (1980). Sex differences in social responsiveness between six months and twelve months. Child Development, 51(1), 262–265. 10.2307/1129619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hane AA, Feldstein S, & Dernetz VH (2003). The relation between coordinated interpersonal timing and maternal sensitivity in four-month-old infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(5), 525–539. 10.1023/A:1025494200272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Haviland JM (1977). Sex- related pragmatics in infants nonverbal communication. Journal of Communication, 27(2), 80–84. 10.1111/J.1460-2466.1977.Tb01830.X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hayes AF, & Matthes J (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936. 10.3758/BRM.41.3.924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Healey DM, Gopin CB, Grossman BR, Campbell SB, & Halperin JM (2010). Mother–child dyadic synchrony is associated with better functioning in hyperactive/inattentive preschool children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(9), 1058–1066. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02220.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Isabella RA (1993). Origins of attachment: Maternal interactive behavior across the first year. Child development, 64(2), 605–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim S, & Kochanska G (2012). Child temperament moderates effects of parent–child mutuality on self- regulation: A relationship- based path for emotionally negative infants. Child Development, 83(4), 1275–1289. 10.1111/J.1467-8624.2012.01778.X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kochanska G (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development, 68(1), 94–112. 10.2307/1131928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kochanska G, & Aksan N (1995). Mother- child mutually positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization. Child development, 66(1), 236–254. 10.1111/J.1467-8624.2012.01778.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kochanska G, Forman DR, & Coy KC (1999). Implications of the mother-child relationship in infancy for socialization in the second year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 22(2), 249–265. 10.1016/S0163-6383(99)00009-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Koo TK, & Li MY (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuczynski L (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for understanding dynamics in parent-child relations In Kuczynski L, (Ed.), Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-Child Relations. (3–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lemery-Chalfant K, Doelger L, & Goldsmith HH (2008). Genetic relations between effortful and attentional control and symptoms of psychopathology in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 17(4), 365–385. 10.1002/Icd.581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lindsey EW, & Caldera YM (2015). Shared affect and dyadic synchrony among secure and insecure parent–toddler dyads. Infant and Child Development, 24(4), 394–413. 10.1002/Icd.1893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lindsey EW, Cremeens PR, & Caldera YM (2010). Mother–child and father–child mutuality in two contexts: consequences for young children's peer relationships. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 19(2), 142–160. 10.1002/icd.645 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lindsey EW, Cremeens PR, Colwell MJ, & Caldera YM (2009). The structure of parent–child dyadic synchrony in toddlerhood and children's communication competence and self- control. Social Development, 18(2), 375–396. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00489.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Malatesta C, & Haviland J (1982). Learning display rules: The socialization of emotion expression in infancy. Child Development, 53(4), 991–1003. 10.2307/1129139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mandara J, Murray CB, Telesford JM, Varner FA, & Richman SB (2012). Observed gender differences in African American mother- child relationships and child behavior. Family Relations, 61(1), 129–141. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00688.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, & Mathews TJ (2015). Births: final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(1), 1–68. Retrieved from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/26749 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Meléndez L (2005). Parental beliefs and practices around early self-regulation: The impact of culture and immigration. Infants & Young Children, 18(2), 136–146. 10.1097/00001163-200504000-00006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mollborn S, & Dennis J (2012). Explaining the early development and health of teen mothers’ children. Sociological Forum. 27(4), 1010–1036. doi: 10.1111/J.1573-7861.2012.01366.X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Owens EB, Shaw DS, & Vondra JI (1998). Relations between infant irritability and maternal responsiveness in low-income families. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(4), 761–777. 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90043-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Putnam SP, Sanson AV, & Rothbart MK (2002). Child temperament and parenting In Bornstein MH, (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting, (255–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  51. Radke-Yarrow M, & Kochanska G (1990). Anger in young children In Stein NL, Leventhal B, Trabasso TR, (Eds), Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, (297–310). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  52. Raver CC, Gershoff ET, & Aber JL (2007). Testing equivalence of mediating models of income, parenting, and school readiness for white, black, and Hispanic children in a national sample. Child Development, 78(1), 96–115. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00987.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Raver CC & Leadbeater BJ (1995). Factors influencing joint attention between socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescent mothers and their infants In Moore C, Dunham PJ (Eds.), Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development. (251–270). New York, NY: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rothbart MK, Ellis LK, & Posner MI (2004). Temperament and self-regulation In Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, And Applications (441–460). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sameroff A (1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human development, 18(1-2), 65–79. 10.1159/000271476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sanchez D, Whittaker TA, Hamilton E, & Arango S (2017). Familial ethnic socialization, gender role attitudes, and ethnic identity development in Mexican-origin early adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(3), 335–347. 10.1037/Cdp0000142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Skuban EM, Shaw DS, Gardner F, Supplee LH, & Nichols SR (2006). The correlates of dyadic synchrony in high-risk, low-income toddler boys. Infant Behavior and Development, 29(3), 423–434. 10.1016/J.Infbeh.2006.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Steinberg L, & Silverberg SB (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841–851. 10.2307/1130361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Suárez-Orozco C, & Qin DB (2006). Gendered perspectives in psychology: Immigrant origin youth. International Migration Review, 40(1), 165–198. 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00007.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wasserman GA, & Lewis M (1985). Infant sex differences: Ecological effects. Sex roles, 12(5-6), 665–675. 10.1007/BF00288185 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES