Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Relat. 2021 Jun 15;70(4):1040–1054. doi: 10.1111/fare.12560

Household Chaos and Early Childhood Behavior Problems: The Moderating Role of Mother–Child Reciprocity in Lower-Income Families

Sarah A Wilhoit 1, Christopher J Trentacosta 2, Marjorie Beeghly 3, Jordan L Boeve 4, Toni L Lewis 5, Moriah E Thomason 6
PMCID: PMC8680262  NIHMSID: NIHMS1707846  PMID: 34924663

Abstract

Objective:

The study examined whether mother–child reciprocity across increasingly challenging contexts moderated the association between household chaos and early childhood behavior problems.

Background:

Living in a chaotic household is associated with behavioral dysregulation in childhood. An important goal in discordant household contexts is to establish positive aspects of relationships that are associated with more favorable developmental outcomes.

Method:

The study analyzed data from 127 mother–child dyads participating in the 3-year visit in a study of primarily low-income, African American/Black families in urban areas. Dyads were videotaped during three successive, increasingly challenging, interaction tasks. Multiple regression analyses examined household chaos, dyadic reciprocity, and the interplay of those as predictors of behavior problems.

Results:

Greater household chaos was associated with more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Moderation analyses indicated that dyadic reciprocity during two challenging interaction tasks (but not during free play) attenuated the association between household chaos and internalizing problems.

Conclusions:

Household chaos was not associated with internalizing problems among dyads who had a connected, supportive relationship in more challenging interactive contexts.

Implications:

Improving shared positive affect and dyadic harmony in the parent–child relationship may help protect young children against the negative influence of chaotic contexts.

Keywords: behavior problems, household chaos, parent–child relationships, reciprocity

Background

Behavior problems in early childhood are commonly described in two primary categories: internalizing (e.g., fearfulness, nervousness) and externalizing (e.g., hitting, biting) behaviors (Achenbach et al., 2016). Although problematic behavior can be relatively normative during the early childhood period, more frequent early behavior problems predict behavioral maladjustment later in life (Achenbach et al., 2016; Kessler et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to gain a greater understanding of the predictors of early behavior problems in order to develop preventive interventions to reduce the impact of behavior problems on negative outcomes. Accordingly, a sizable body of research has examined early precursors of childhood internalizing and externalizing problems.

A large area of research on the precursors of early internalizing and externalizing problems has examined risky aspects of the family environment, such as household chaos (e.g., Coldwell et al., 2006). Household chaos is associated with behavioral dysregulation across childhood, including increased frustration and distress to limitations in infancy (Bridgett et al., 2013) and increased risk for both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems among school-age children, as rated by parents and teachers (Dumas et al., 2005). Thus, further nuanced investigation into the role of chaotic household environments in early behavioral problems may foster a greater understanding of how to prevent the development of later childhood behavior problems. Furthermore, the negative influences of household chaos may be compounded by vertical family stressors, such as poverty, as outlined in the family resilience model (FRM; Henry et al., 2015). However, within the family system, the parent–child subsystem may be identified for the improvement or development of family protective processes, thereby reducing the risk incurred by a chaotic household (Henry et al., 2015). Indeed, a large area of research suggests that features of the early relationship between parents and their young children are highly influential for later development (Goffin et al., 2018). The present study examined whether dyadic reciprocity in mother–child interactions mitigated or exacerbated the relationship between household chaos and young children’s behavior problems in a study of families who were recruited from a large urban area with very high levels of poverty.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model suggests that children develop in interaction with their ecosystems, including, most immediately, the microsystem, which incorporates the child’s immediate family. This system is further nested within the exosystem and mesosystem, both of which represent aspects of the child’s broader context. Many environmental risks across multiple levels of the ecosystem, such as poverty, neighborhood factors, and home environment, play a role in influencing developmental outcomes during early childhood.

The family resilience model (FRM; Henry et al., 2015) integrates a family’s risks, vulnerabilities, and promotive and protective factors to understand the ways in which families adapt over time. Family risk factors, which include chronic strains like poverty, increase pressure within the family and may pile up to become a significant risk or family crisis. Families are protected from the influence of stressors by protective factors, such as positive family relationships, which may be especially important during periods of high risk or adversity (Henry et al., 2015; Masten, 2018). Family resilience occurs when a family facing risks and other vulnerabilities mobilizes their protective processes to promote short- and long-term positive family adaptation.

A large body of literature indicates that positive features of the parent–child relationship are key protective factors. Within the FRM, and developmental research more broadly, parents play an important role in a child’s development, including teaching children how to access and utilize adaptive systems, such as emotion regulation, to cope with challenges and stressors (Henry et al., 2015; Masten, 2018). In this way, parents serve as “co-regulators” for their children, particularly in early childhood, when children are learning to manage their emotions and behaviors (Lunkenheimer et al., 2011). This role as a co-regulator of arousal, emotion, and behavior may be an especially important role for parents when families are faced with chronic stressors, such as chaotic living situations and poverty (Masten, 2018). Thus, to more fully understand resilience during early childhood, it is vital to study dyadic interactions within the parent–child relationship among families facing stressors associated with poverty.

Household Chaos

Research has increasingly focused on household chaos as a key aspect of the family environment that influences early cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development. Household chaos has been defined in a variety of ways, including disorganization (e.g., Vernon-Feagans et al., 2016), family transitions (e.g., Capaldi & Patterson, 1991), and commotion within the house (e.g., Matheny et al., 1995). Across these various definitions, more chaotic household environments predict multiple negative child outcomes, including lower cognitive ability (e.g., Pike et al., 2006), difficulties with behavioral control (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2016), and increased negative emotionality (e.g., Bridgett et al., 2013).

A growing body of literature has focused on associations between household chaos and behavior problems (e.g., Watamura et al., 2011). For example, in a study of siblings living in two-parent homes, Coldwell et al. (2006) found that chaos predicted behavior problems even after accounting for the role of parenting. Specifically, household chaos, assessed using the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS; Matheny et al., 1995), predicted behavior problems in both older and younger siblings after controlling for the mother–child relationship, and in older siblings after controlling for the father–child relationship (Coldwell et al., 2006). Other studies have established associations between household chaos and externalizing (Deater-Deckard et al., 2009) and internalizing problems (Evans et al., 2005) during childhood and adolescence. In early childhood research, household chaos was associated with externalizing but not internalizing problems among preschool-age children (Dumas et al., 2005), and chaos during early childhood was associated with subsequent externalizing problems in a study that did not evaluate internalizing problems (Supplee et al., 2007). In summary, the findings to date suggest that household chaos is associated with childhood internalizing and externalizing problems. However, there is some variability in the magnitude and consistency of associations, particularly regarding internalizing problems, which deserves further evaluation. In addition, there is relatively little research on associations between household chaos and behavior problems among very young children.

Mother–Child Relationships

The present study’s focus on dyadic mother–child reciprocity was based on theoretical perspectives and empirical research that underscore the importance of studying family subsystems, and especially the parent–child subsystem, when examining associations between aspects of the child’s ecological context and their maladjustment. Parenting behaviors have long been established as playing an important role in ameliorating the association between family contextual risk factors and young children’s behavior problems. For example, mothers’ positive parenting buffered the association between maternal depressive symptoms and internalizing problems among young children from low-income families (Goodlett et al., 2017). Studies focusing on aspects of the mother–child dyad are especially informative because they capture the mother’s and the child’s joint contributions to the unfolding mother–child relationship and child’s developmental trajectory.

The present study focused on a specific feature of the dyadic relationship, mother–child reciprocity. This construct is closely related to other dyadic assessments evaluated in the literature, including dyadic synchrony (Harrist & Waugh, 2002), dyadic interaction quality (Delonis et al., 2017), mutuality (Deater-Deckard et al., 2004), and mutually responsive orientation (MRO; Aksan et al., 2006). For example, dyadic synchrony comprises three key elements: engagement, affective tone, and connectedness (Harrist et al., 1994). Engagement refers to the duration of a mutually coordinated mother–child interaction and is quantified in terms of either the number of mother and child turns taken or time span. Affective tone refers to the valence of the dyads’ emotional interaction (shared positive, negative, or neutral affect). Connectedness refers to reciprocity and contingency regarding the dyad’s shared attention and balance in the interaction (Harrist et al., 1994). Similarly, MRO consists of multiple components of dyadic interactive episodes, including coordinated routines and behaviors, harmony in communication, mutual cooperation, and shared positive emotionality (Aksan et al., 2006). In the present study, dyadic reciprocity was characterized by several specific dyadic emotional and behavioral characteristics during interactions, including shared positive affect and contingent turn taking.

Higher-quality mother–child interactions assessed in these ways (i.e., dyadic reciprocity, synchrony, and MRO) predict positive developmental outcomes and fewer behavior problems among children. For example, in a sample of kindergarten students, positive synchrony between mother and child was associated with increased child social competence, greater engagement in play, and less aggression in kindergarten (Harrist et al., 1994). Negative synchrony, in contrast, was associated with increased child withdrawal, disengaged play, and increased aggression in kindergarten. In a longitudinal sample of toddlers born preterm or at term, mother–child dyadic interaction quality characterized by higher reciprocity and shared positive affect during toddlerhood mediated the association between biological risk and children’s later cognitive ability, as well as their emotion regulation (Delonis et al., 2017). Likewise, in a study of 7- to 9-year-old children and their interactions with both mother and father, parent–child mutuality, when combined with above-average dyadic positive affect, was associated with fewer externalizing behavior problems (Deater-Deckard et al., 2004). In addition, mother–child MRO during early childhood was associated with children’s later increased willingness to follow and accept rules and the development of conscience (Kochanska & Murray, 2000).

Dyadic Reciprocity as a Protective Factor

Parenting and child characteristics both play a role in the association between household chaos and child outcomes. For example, household chaos predicted behavioral regulation difficulties in kindergarten (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2016), and this association was mediated by children’s early executive functioning skills and parenting responsivity and acceptance behaviors, conceptualized as the inverse of harsh and punitive parenting behaviors. Furthermore, Vernon-Feagans et al. (2016) considered multiple elements of household chaos, including disorganization and household instability, and found significant associations with child outcomes when chaos was defined using the former, but not the latter, criteria. In another recent study focused on externalizing and internalizing problems during early childhood, children’s self-regulation buffered the association between household chaos and both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Crespo et al., 2019). More specifically, household chaos was associated with more behavior problems, but the association was reduced to statistical nonsignificance among children with better self-regulation skills. These recent findings emphasize the importance of investigating additional factors that may protect young children from the potentially harmful impact of household chaos on risk for behavior problems.

Engaging in reciprocal mother–child interactions characterized by contingent turn taking and shared positive affect may be especially helpful when families from impoverished communities face high levels of household chaos. Similar to findings for child self-regulation, which, as noted above, buffered the association between household chaos and behavior problems among young children from low-income families (Crespo et al., 2019), dyadic reciprocity is likely to be particularly relevant in challenging, stressful, and frustrating contexts. From an FRM perspective (Henry et al., 2015), it is likely that many parent–child dyads struggling with high levels of chaos in the home due to overcrowding or disorganization are able to maintain interpersonal harmony and coordination when working together as a parent–child team. Thus, dyadic reciprocity during social interactions may function as a protective factor, reducing the child’s risk for behavior problems, for children living in chaotic environments.

To our knowledge, the protective role of dyadic reciprocity in highly chaotic contexts has not been studied. Existing studies on associations among household chaos, parenting, and child developmental outcomes have tended to examine parenting as a mediator of the association between household chaos and developmental outcomes without focusing on dyadic features of the mother–child relationship. For example, Vernon-Feagans et al. (2016) examined mothers’ responsivity or acceptance as a mediator of the association between household chaos and children’s behavioral regulation. The present study evaluated direct observations of mother–child interactions in contexts varying in level of challenge for the dyad to ascertain whether dyadic reciprocity moderated the association between chaos and young children’s behavior problems.

Current Study

The current study examined the interplay of household chaos and dyadic reciprocity when predicting young children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems within a sample of primarily low-income and African American/Black families living in or near a large city. Existing research on household chaos often focuses primarily on families of middle to higher socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., Deater-Deckard et al., 2009). Although household chaos may occur at any socioeconomic stratum, it is important to evaluate this construct among lower-income populations, as such groups may encounter more stressors linked to poverty such as housing instability and overcrowding. Furthermore, studying these associations during early childhood is important because early behavior problems can forecast later behavioral and socioemotional difficulties, and identifying potential targets for family-focused preventive intervention during this developmental period could help reduce the likelihood of these later difficulties.

Dyadic reciprocity was observed in multiple observational contexts, including contexts that tend to be enjoyable for mothers and young children (e.g., free play) and contexts that often prove more challenging for the dyad (e.g., cleanup and teaching tasks). Studying dyadic reciprocity, as opposed to studying maternal and child behavior during interaction separately, allows for a more direct examination of the mother–child subsystem. The inclusion of increasingly challenging tasks allows for a closer examination of a range of dyadic stressors that closely approximate activities that occur during daily life in households with young children. Dyadic reciprocity may function as a protective factor only when assessed in relatively more stressful contexts that tax the dyad’s capacity to harmoniously work together, whereas reciprocity may not be as influential in lower-stress contexts.

We hypothesized that the degree of household chaos reported by mothers would be associated with more child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems according to maternal report when the child was 3 years old. We also hypothesized that a higher level of observed dyadic mother–child reciprocity during a series of structured tasks in a research lab would be associated with fewer behavior problems. Furthermore, we predicted that the degree of mother–child dyadic reciprocity would moderate the association between household chaos and behavior problems. More specifically, higher levels of dyadic reciprocity were expected to reduce the strength of the association between household chaos and early childhood behavior problems. We further explored whether the buffering role of dyadic reciprocity would be especially likely to occur when observed in contexts that were more challenging to the dyads. We addressed this possibility by examining moderation separately in observations of reciprocity during a low-challenge context (free play) and during more challenging contexts (cleanup and teaching tasks). We expected a similar pattern of associations when predicting internalizing and externalizing problems because internalizing and externalizing problems tend to be highly correlated in early childhood (e.g., Crespo et al., 2019). Analyses controlled for family SES, child gender and age, and observed maternal support. Controlling for observed maternal support enabled us to examine the role of dyadic reciprocity after accounting for mothers’ warmth and emotional support.

Method

Participants

Analyses in the present study were based on data collected from 127 mother–child dyads participating in an ongoing study of families from mostly low-income, urban backgrounds. Mothers were initially recruited during their second or third trimester of pregnancy, and mother–child dyads were followed at multiple time points across early development. The current study focused on observations of mother–child interactions and maternal ratings of household chaos and child behavior problems collected when children were approximately 3 years old. Eligible participants in the present study included all dyads from the ongoing study who had completed the 3-year follow-up visit by March 2018.

Slightly more than half (58%) of the children in the present sample were male, and most (83%) were born at term (37–42 gestational weeks at delivery). Most children included in the present analyses completed the 3-year follow-up visit within 1 to 2 months of their third birthday (M = 36.08 months, SD = 1.98 months), although their age at visit ranged from 30.25 months to 40.70 months. Most mothers in the present sample (87%) self-reported as African American/Black in race/ethnicity, 8% were Caucasian, 2% were Asian American, 1% were Hispanic/Latina, and the remaining mothers reported that they were from multiple race/ethnicity groups. According to maternal report at the age 3 assessment, 38% of mothers were married or partnered, 69% of mothers had at least one other adult living in their home, median total household annual income was $10,000–$20,000 on a scale ranging from 1 (<$10,000) to 16 (>$250,000), and median maternal education was a high school degree or GED on a scale ranging from 1 (less than seventh grade) to 8 (graduate degree). Twenty-four percent of mothers reported living in their current home for less than 1 year, 32% for 1–2 years, 34% for 2–5 years, and the remaining mothers reported 5 or more years.

Of the 130 dyads who had an age 3-year follow-up visit by March 2018, 127 were included in the current analyses. Three dyads were not included in the present study because of child physical or developmental disabilities. Among the 127 dyads, there was a relatively small amount of missing data on individual measures or tasks. Reasons for missing data include technical difficulties that led to data loss for all interaction tasks (n = 5), dyads did not complete all three interaction tasks (n = 2), or dyads completed the interaction but the mother did not complete either the household chaos or the child behavior problem questionnaire (n = 13). Given the relatively small amount of missing data and the nonsignificant differences between participants with complete versus incomplete data based on t-tests, analyses of the 127 dyads were conducted using multiple imputation as detailed in a later section.

Procedure

The 3-year lab visit took place in a carpeted room equipped with a one-way mirror at a university research laboratory. Written informed consent was obtained from the mothers prior to their participation in this wave of data collection. The child’s developmental skills were assessed while the mother completed a set of questionnaires, including the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS; Matheny et al., 1995) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).

The interaction portion of the visit took place halfway through the child developmental assessment. The mother–child dyads were told that they were going to take a break from the developmental assessments and questionnaires to play together. Dyads were videotaped during three successive interaction tasks that were administered in the following order: free play, cleanup, and a two-part teaching task. A research assistant remained in the room during the interaction sequence to adjust cameras as needed but was instructed to remain neutral and not interact with the mother or child during the interaction tasks.

Free Play.

Dyads were invited to sit together on a mat in the lab playroom and to play with a standard set of age-appropriate toys arranged on the mat. No specific instructions about how to play were given. The toy set included a plastic food set, a toy school bus with a driver and plastic children representing different racial backgrounds, two construction trucks, a baby doll with a dark skin tone, a bathtub and washcloth, and a bottle. The free-play interaction was videotaped for 10 minutes.

Cleanup.

At the end of the free-play session, the research assistant provided two bins and instructed the mother to have the child clean up the toys. The mother was told she could use any strategy she wished to help the child clean up the toys, but she could not put the toys in the bin for the child. The cleanup task was videotaped for 3 minutes.

Teaching Tasks.

After the cleanup task, dyads were invited to complete a two-part sorting task lasting 7 minutes. The dyad was given three sorting bins and a set of blocks. Each block had a different-colored shape on it, and a total of three different shapes in three different colors were included among the blocks. Mothers were instructed first to teach the child how to sort the blocks by color (3.5 minutes), then to teach the child to sort the blocks by shape (3.5 minutes). This task was intended to be challenging for the dyad, as the required sorting tasks (first by color and then by shape) requires cognitive (basic concepts) and executive (set-shifting) skills that fall just outside of a typical 3-year-old’s ability. Therefore, this task is likely to be frustrating for both members of the dyad.

At the end of the teaching tasks, the mother resumed completing questionnaires and the examiner resumed evaluating the child’s developmental skills.

Measures

Household Chaos.

CHAOS (Matheny et al., 1995) is a well-validated and widely used 15-item scale that assesses household chaos. The CHAOS was originally developed with a true-or-false format, but Likert-scale versions of it have been used in subsequent research (e.g., Deater-Deckard et al., 2009). In the present study, a Likert version was completed by mothers, with 1 = Very much like our home and 4 = Not at all like our home. Mothers rated each item without being given an explicit time frame to consider. Examples of items include “You can’t hear yourself think in our home” and “The atmosphere in our home is calm,” with several items reverse-scored so that higher scores indicated higher levels of household chaos. Thus, the scale assesses chaos conceptualized as disorganization, disruption, and a chaotic atmosphere. It does not assess other features that have been linked to household chaos, such as shifting family structure or housing instability. Internal consistency was strong in the present study’s sample (α = .85).

Mother–Child Dyadic Reciprocity.

The videos of the three mother–child interaction tasks were scored using a reliable scoring system that includes 19 rating scales, which focus on multiple dimensions of maternal behavior, child behavior, and dyadic behavior. The scales were adapted by the third author from those included in the Teaching Task Scoring System developed by Egeland et al. (1995), and from the Parent–Child Interaction System (PARCHISY) system developed by Deater-Deckard et al. (1997). Both scoring systems have established validity and reliability in prior research, and each utilizes 7-point Likert rating scales. In the present study, the videotaped 20-minute interaction sequence was scored by reliable coders masked to background variables and the hypotheses of the current study. The interaction tasks were divided into the following segments for scoring purposes: first half of free play (5 minutes), second half of free play (5 minutes), cleanup (3 minutes), color-teaching task (3.5 minutes), and shape-teaching task (3.5 minutes).

The present study utilized ratings from one of the three dyadic scales: Dyadic Reciprocity/Quality of Relationship. This scale assesses both affective and contingency aspects of the mother–child interaction. To receive a high score (6 or 7) on this scale, the interaction between mother and child must be highly coordinated and mutually reciprocal (e.g., contingent turn taking or conversation) for most of the interaction. Additionally, dyads must exhibit a high level of shared positive affect during the interaction. Thus, mother–child dyads scoring high in reciprocity are engaged in the task, take turns talking, and share positive affect as demonstrated by eye contact, smiling, and tone of voice. Low scores (1 or 2) were characterized by very little or no dyadic reciprocity, whereas scores of 3 to 5 indicated a moderate or mixed level of dyadic reciprocity. Thus, mother–child dyads scoring low in reciprocity may not interact; may have one person driving the interaction; or may lack positive affect, as demonstrated by arguing, an angry tone of voice or facial expression, or disengagement.

Intercoder reliability in the present sample was assessed by an independent, experienced coder who rescored approximately 20% of the total sample. Reliability coefficients were calculated for all scales using intraclass correlations (ICCs). The ICCs for dyadic reciprocity ranged from .81 to .94 across tasks, with a mean ICC of .88, indicating very good reliability. The ICCs for each coding segment were .81 for first half of the free play, .89 for the second half of the free play, .94 for the cleanup, .91 for the color-teaching task, and .84 for the shape-teaching task. Because reciprocity scores across the two free-play segments were highly correlated (r = .75, p < .001), we averaged reciprocity scores in each free-play segment for subsequent analyses. Likewise, because reciprocity scores during the two teaching tasks were moderately correlated (r = .54, p < .001), we averaged reciprocity scores in each teaching task for analytic purposes.

Childhood Behavior Problems.

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) for children 1.5 to 5 years is a well-validated and widely used 100-item parent-report instrument designed to assess parents’ perceptions of their young child’s behavior problems. Parents report the frequency of child behavior during the previous 2 months on each item using a 3-point Likert-type scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true). Raw scores were used in the present study. The CBCL yields two broad-band scale scores, Internalizing Problems (e.g., “unhappy, sad, or depressed”) and Externalizing Problems (e.g., “hits others”), which reflect the sum of all items on each scale. Both the Internalizing (36 items; α = .88) and Externalizing (24 items; α = .90) broad-band scales had high reliability in the present study.

Analytic Plan and Covariates

After exploring descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations, six multiple regressions were carried out that examined household chaos, mother–child reciprocity, and a chaos × reciprocity interaction term as predictors of child behavior problems. The predictor (household chaos) and the moderators (mother–child reciprocity in each context) were centered prior to creating household chaos × reciprocity interaction terms. A different regression was run for mother–child reciprocity in each interaction context (free play, cleanup, or teaching tasks). Separate regressions predicting internalizing and externalizing problems were carried out. Before conducting the multiple regressions, missing data were imputed in SPSS with multiple imputation because listwise deletion reduces power and may bias the results. Ten imputed data sets were created using existing data from the 127 dyads included in analyses. Pooled estimates of statistics are reported for the multiple regressions, which represent averages across the imputations weighted by standard errors.

The multiple regression analyses included both child and maternal demographic covariates. Three a priori child covariates were included that are theoretically relevant to the young children’s behavior problems according to findings in the literature (Gray et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2004). These covariates were child gender, children’s gestational age at birth, and child age (in months) at the time of the 3-year visit. Maternal education and household income at the time of the 3-year visit were also considered covariates as a result of existing findings of associations between socioeconomic indicators and parenting and young children’s behavior problems (Brody & Flor, 1998; Dearing et al., 2006). Because maternal education and household income were highly correlated in the current study (r = .66, p < .001), these variables were standardized and averaged to create an aggregate measure of family SES for the multiple regression analyses. Last, to help isolate the role of dyadic reciprocity in the hypothesized associations, we controlled for level of maternal support during each interaction context. Maternal support reflects the mother’s positive regard, warmth, and emotional support to the child during social interaction, rated on the same 7-point Likert rating scale as dyadic reciprocity but focused solely on the mothers’ behavior rather than features of the dyad.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores) for the study variables. The mean levels of household chaos and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems were relatively modest, although there was considerable variation between families. The level of mother–child reciprocity during free play and the cleanup task covered most scale points, but the range of scores in the teaching tasks was more restricted. Paired-samples t-tests indicated that the average scores for reciprocity were significantly higher during free play than during both the cleanup, t (119) = 16.17, p < .001, and teaching tasks, t (120) = 18.35, p < .001. The level of reciprocity did not differ when comparing cleanup and teaching tasks, t (119) = 1.35, p > .05.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Range of Scores for Study Variables

Variable n M SD Range
Covariates
Child gender 73/54 (males/females)
Gestational age at birth (weeks) 127 38.26 2.64 24.71–41.71
Child age (months) 127 36.08 1.98 30.25–40.70
Maternal education 127 4.57 1.21 3–8
Household income 126 2.54 2.31 1–13
Maternal support (free play) 120 4.48 .91 2.25–6.00
Maternal support (cleanup) 119 4.00 1.04 2.00–6.00
Maternal support (teaching tasks) 121 3.75 1.01 1.50–6.00
Household chaos 122 25.95 7.49 15–45
Parent–child reciprocity
Free play 121 4.37 1.04 1.50–6.50
Cleanup 120 2.60 1.13 1.00–6.00
Teaching tasks 122 2.47 0.94 1.00–4.75
Outcomes
Internalizing problems 120 8.07 7.21 0–38
Externalizing problems 119 11.59 7.90 0–37
Open in a new tab

Table 2 presents bivariate correlations among the primary study variables. As hypothesized, household chaos was positively correlated with both internalizing and externalizing problems. Contrary to expectations, mother–child reciprocity was not significantly correlated with either household chaos or internalizing or externalizing problems. However, mother–child reciprocity scores were moderately correlated across contexts, indicating that dyads retained their relative rankings in level of dyadic reciprocity across contexts. In addition, in each context, reciprocity was moderately correlated with maternal support (rs ranged from .31 to .52, ps < .01).

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Household chaos −.10 .09 −.16 .38** .38**
2. Reciprocity (free play) −.13 .30** .26** −.07 −.02
3. Reciprocity (cleanup) .01 .39** .31** .01 .13
4. Reciprocity (teaching) −.16 .33** .33** −.07 −.02
5. Internalizing problems .37** −.17 −.03 −.17 .70**
6. Externalizing problems .40** −.12 .03 −.15 .71**
Open in a new tab

Note. Simple bivariate correlations are below the diagonal, and partial correlations accounting for covariates (child gender, gestational age at birth, child age, socioeconomic status, and maternal support in each task) are above the diagonal.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Results of the six multiple regression models are provided in Tables 3 and 4. In each regression, household chaos predicted behavior problems. However, mother–child reciprocity was not directly associated with either internalizing or externalizing problems.

Table 3.

Household Chaos and Dyadic Reciprocity as Predictors of Internalizing Problems

Free Play Cleanup Teaching Tasks
Predictor B SE t B SE t B SE t
Child gender −1.12 1.31 −.86 −1.16 1.24 −.93 −1.05 1.26 −.84
Gestational age at birth −.18 .24 −.76 −.19 .24 −.79 −.23 .23 −1.02
Child age .03 .33 .10 −.08 .32 −.25 −.03 .32 −.10
Socioeconomic status −.98 .71 −1.37 −.99 .69 −1.43 −.58 .75 −.78
Maternal support −.22 .88 −.25 .20 .67 .30 −.84 .74 −1.14
Household chaos .31 .09 3.59** .32 .09 3.74** .30 .09 3.47**
Reciprocity (free play) −.48 .74 −.65 — — — — — —
Reciprocity (cleanup) — — — .05 .60 .08 — — —
Reciprocity (teaching) — — — — — — .13 .78 .17
Chaos × Reciprocitya .02 .09 .25 −.19 .08 −2.33* −.20 .09 −2.29*
Open in a new tab
a

Interaction term uses reciprocity from free play, cleanup, or teaching tasks.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Table 4.

Household Chaos and Dyadic Reciprocity as Predictors of Externalizing Problems

Free Play Cleanup Teaching Tasks
Predictor B SE t B SE t B SE t
Child gender −3.40 1.37 −2.48* −3.36 1.31 −2.56* −3.44 1.35 −2.55*
Gestational age at birth −.40 .25 −1.60 −.48 .25 −1.95 −.43 .24 −1.76
Child age −.17 .34 −.50 −.22 .33 −.66 −.21 .34 −.61
Socioeconomic status −1.75 .74 −2.36* −1.74 .73 −2.40* −1.79 .80 −2.23*
Maternal support −.12 .91 −.13 −.29 .71 −.41 −.43 .80 −.53
Household chaos .37 .09 4.28** .35 .09 4.08** .37 .09 4.28**
Reciprocity (free play) .15 .77 .19 — — — — — —
Reciprocity (cleanup) — — — .91 .65 1.40 — — —
Reciprocity (teaching) — — — — — — .54 .80 .67
Chaos × Reciprocitya .06 .09 .68 −.07 .09 −.80 .04 .09 .38
Open in a new tab
a

Interaction term uses reciprocity from free play, cleanup, or teaching tasks.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Notably, the pattern of moderation differed across contexts and outcomes. Mother–child reciprocity during free play did not moderate the association between household chaos and internalizing problems. However, mother–child reciprocity during cleanup significantly moderated the association between household chaos and internalizing problems. Likewise, mother–child reciprocity during teaching tasks moderated the association between household chaos and internalizing problems. Both of these significant moderation findings held while also controlling for externalizing problems. No significant moderation was found for mother–child reciprocity (assessed in any context) when predicting externalizing problems.

Graphs depicting the interactions between household chaos and mother–child reciprocity during cleanup and teaching tasks are provided in Figure 1. The graph for cleanup shows that higher levels of reciprocity during cleanup attenuated the link between household chaos and internalizing problems. Tests of simple slopes indicated that household chaos was strongly associated with internalizing problems when reciprocity during cleanup was 1 SD below the mean (B = .53, SE = .13, p < .001), but household chaos was not significantly associated with internalizing problems when reciprocity during cleanup was 1 SD above the mean (B = .11, SE = .12, p > .05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interactions Between Household Chaos and Reciprocity Predicting Internalizing Problems.

A similar pattern emerged when graphing the interaction between household chaos and mother–child reciprocity during teaching tasks. Specifically, higher levels of reciprocity during teaching tasks attenuated the link between household chaos and internalizing problems. Tests of simple slopes indicated that household chaos was strongly associated with internalizing problems when reciprocity during teaching tasks was 1 SD below the mean (B = .49, SE = .12, p < .001), but household chaos was not significantly associated with internalizing problems when reciprocity during teaching tasks was 1 SD above the mean (B = .11, SE = .12, p > .05).

Discussion

The current study examined the interplay of household chaos and dyadic reciprocity in predicting young children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems within a sample of primarily low-income, African American/Black families living in or near a large city. Dyadic reciprocity, which includes high levels of shared positive affect and contingent responsivity (e.g., turn taking) was examined across multiple contexts. These contexts included free play, which was typically viewed as enjoyable, and cleanup and teaching tasks, which may be more challenging and stressful for many parents and their young children. Results of the study indicated that household chaos was directly associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems in early childhood. Counter to expectations, dyadic reciprocity was not directly associated with household chaos or either type of problem behavior. However, higher reciprocity during cleanup and teaching tasks (but not during free play) attenuated the association between chaos and young children’s internalizing problems. Thus, our findings support the idea that dyadic reciprocity is more likely to play a buffering role in more challenging contexts.

These findings highlight the importance of understanding the mother–child relationship and the broader household context in conjunction with each other when studying behavior problems among young children from low-income communities. Although mothers in the current sample reported relatively low levels of household chaos, on average, those reporting comparatively higher levels of chaos also reported that their young children exhibited higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems. These findings are consistent with previous research documenting a rather robust and consistent link between household chaos and child behavior problems (e.g., Deater-Deckard et al., 2009; Evans et al., 2005; Watamura et al., 2011). The present study adds to the growing body of literature on these associations among low-income, urban families (Crespo et al., 2019; Supplee et al., 2007).

Additionally, findings from the current study suggest that looking only at household chaos without considering important features of the dyadic mother–child relationship may not provide a complete picture of children’s risk for early behavior problems, especially internalizing problems. Assessing the mother–child relationship is important for understanding the association between household chaos and behavior problems because a child’s context consists not only of physical environment but also relationships. Consistent with the FRM (Henry et al., 2015) and studies of family resilience, parents help children learn to activate adaptive systems when faced with stress, often serving as co-regulators of their children’s emotions and behaviors (Lunkenheimer et al., 2011; Masten, 2018). In the current study, specific findings varied depending on the context in which mother–child interaction was evaluated. Our results demonstrate that higher dyadic reciprocity during the challenging cleanup task attenuated the link between household chaos and internalizing problems. A similar pattern was observed during the teaching task, where higher levels of dyadic reciprocity buffered the association between household chaos and internalizing problems. In both contexts, there was a significant association between household chaos and internalizing problems when dyadic reciprocity was relatively low, but no significant association at higher levels of dyadic reciprocity. Furthermore, associations held after controlling for maternal support, which was an observed variable that focused more narrowly on the mothers’ warmth and emotional support rather than features of the dyad.

These results are consistent with the FRM (Henry et al., 2015) and related empirical research (e.g., Goodlett et al., 2017) on positive aspects of the parent–child relationship that function as important protective factors throughout early childhood development. The results suggest that increased stress experienced during challenging tasks can help activate adaptive systems within the family. That is, the protective influence of dyadic reciprocity within the mother–child subsystem was activated during the more challenging tasks and, similarly, is expected to be more activated in more stressful, or chaotic, home environments. Importantly, household chaos can be influenced by multiple factors and may be difficult to directly address in homes with large numbers of children and adults. However, in chaotic contexts, fostering a positive, supportive dyadic relationship between the parent and child could reduce the child’s risk for developing symptoms of anxiety and depression.

The present study also uncovered important nuances in relation to the role of specific dyadic interaction contexts. Mother–child dyads participated in multiple interaction tasks that varied in level of challenge, including an unstructured free-play task followed by three tasks meant to place a mild level of stress on the dyad: a cleanup task and two teaching activities (sorting objects by color and shape). The moderating role of dyadic reciprocity in the association between household chaos and internalizing problems was consistently supported across the more challenging cleanup and teaching tasks but not in the comparatively less stressful free play. Overall, there was a lower level of reciprocity in the cleanup and teaching tasks relative to the free-play task, which provides evidence that, on average, the cleanup and teaching activities were more challenging for the mother–child dyads.

We speculate that the mother–child interactions during these more challenging tasks may be representative of typical daily interactions during stressful circumstances. Thus, observing mother–child interactions during the cleanup and teaching tasks may be a better indicator of how the dyad functions in more chaotic contexts. As the present findings demonstrate, the protective function of the mother–child relationship is especially apparent during these challenging and stressful situations. More specifically, children from dyads who can work together as a team and share positive affect during challenging episodes seem to be less susceptible to emotional turmoil while living within a more chaotic household.

Interestingly, the pattern of moderation described here was supported only in models predicting internalizing problems. This pattern was not supported in models predicting young children’s externalizing problems. One possible explanation for this difference is that children at a higher risk for internalizing problems become more overstimulated by chaotic households, thus needing and benefitting more from shared positive engagement during reciprocal mother–child interactions. Additionally, for externalizing problems, there may be other features of the dyadic relationship or specific parenting practices that may serve a protective function within chaotic households. For example, lower levels of mother–child conflict may be especially germane to limiting externalizing problems within the context of higher levels of household chaos. It is possible also that the differential effect is due to child differences, such that mothers are more able to establish reciprocity with children who show fewer externalizing tendencies.

Strengths and Limitations

The present study has both strengths and limitations that should be considered when evaluating the results. Strengths include the study’s use of multiple methods (direct observations of interaction quality and parent reports) and the evaluation of reciprocity in multiple contexts. In addition, this study used well-established, reliable measures of household chaos and young children’s behavior problems that are very frequently used in the literature. A limitation is the use of parent report to assess both chaos and child behavior problems. Therefore, the association between the two constructs could have been influenced by shared methods variance. Furthermore, the maternal reporters may have differed in their tolerance or perception of household chaos, thus reporting different levels of chaos than an independent observer would rate. Research on household chaos, including the formative studies that influenced current understanding of this construct (e.g., Wachs, 1986), often included systematic observation of the home environment, which would have further strengthened the present study. We also did not investigate other relevant household factors such as housing instability and food insecurity. In addition, child individual differences, such as temperament, could influence a child’s tolerance for household chaos and could make mother–child reciprocity either more or less challenging.

Another limitation of the present study is its cross-sectional design. Because the data were collected at a single time point, causal interpretations of the findings are not possible. Moreover, the current study did not consider dyadic reciprocity with fathers or other caregivers, even though an increasing number of studies show that the dyadic father–child relationship plays an important role in early development (Cabrera et al., 2018). In addition, the results of this study may not generalize to other populations, such as low-income families living in rural areas or families with more socioeconomic resources.

In addition, dyadic interactions were observed during structured protocols in a research laboratory and a research assistant was required to remain in the room with the mother and child during data collection to provide instructions for tasks and adjust video cameras as needed. Although the research assistant was trained to remain neutral and not interact with the mother and child during tasks, it is still possible that the research assistant’s presence might have altered the mother’s or child’s behavior. Furthermore, naturalistic observation of reciprocity during daily life could have yielded a different pattern of findings.

Implications and Future Directions

Future research should investigate how mother–child dyadic processes unfold across time, both in low-income, ethnic-minority communities and across broader cross sections of the population of families with young children. Future research could address questions regarding the roles of father–child reciprocity and dyadic interactions with other caregivers (e.g., teachers) in ameliorating risk for behavior problems, as well as whether siblings play a role in these processes. Furthermore, researchers should consider the directionality and developmental timing of the observed associations. The buffering effect of reciprocity in the present study was apparent at 36 months for internalizing problems. Future research should investigate whether the association is present even earlier in life and whether it is present at other points for externalizing problems. Researchers could also address intervention-related questions, such as whether increasing parental behaviors associated with reciprocity leads to improved behavioral outcomes.

Given the observed association between household chaos and behavior problems and the moderating role of dyadic reciprocity in attenuating the link between household chaos and internalizing problems, the current findings underscore potential focal points for intervention. These results suggest that interventions should address both the broader household context and the parent–child relationship in multiple contexts. Parents may be taught skills to serve as co-regulators of their child’s behavior and emotions, including modeling turn taking, working as a team in more challenging situations, and maintaining positive affect. Practitioners could coach parents to use these forms of reciprocity during play as well as increasingly more challenging nonplay situations. Interventions that promote teamwork and shared positive affect in the parent–child dyad may help protect against the development of behavior problems, even when there are relatively high levels of chaos in the home.

Acknowledgements

We thank the research team for their assistance with data collection, and the families for their valuable participation in the project.

The ongoing study is partially funded by a National Institutes of Health grant (R01MH110793; PI: Moriah Thomason) In Utero Assessment of the Human Neural Connectome and Later Child Behavior. It was previously funded by a National Institutes of Health grant (R21ES026022; co-PIs: Moriah Thomason and S. Alexandra Burt) Consequences of Prenatal Toxicant Exposure on Fetal Brain Function.

Contributor Information

Sarah A. Wilhoit, Wayne State University

Christopher J. Trentacosta, Wayne State University

Marjorie Beeghly, Wayne State University.

Jordan L. Boeve, Wayne State University

Toni L. Lewis, Wayne State University

Moriah E. Thomason, New York University Medical Center and NYU Langone Health

References

  1. Achenbach TM, Ivanova MY, Rescorla LA, Turner LV, & Althoff RR (2016). Internalizing/externalizing problems: Review and recommendations for clinical and research application. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(8), 647–656. 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2000). Manuel for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aksan N, Kochanska G, & Ortmann MR (2006). Mutually responsive orientation between parents and their young children: Toward methodological advances in the science of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 833–848. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bridgett DJ, Burt NM, Laake LM, Oddi KB (2013). Maternal self-regulation, relationship adjustment, and home chaos: Contributions to infant negative emotionality. Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 534–547. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.04.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brody GH, & Flor DL (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69, 803–816. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06244.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bronfenbrenner U (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabrera NJ, Volling BL, & Barr R (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12, 152–157. 10.1111/cdep.12275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Capaldi DM, & Patterson GR (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 489–504. 10.1037/0012-1649.27.3.489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coldwell J, Pike A, & Dunn J (2006). Household chaos—Links with parenting and child behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(11), 1116–1122. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01655.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crespo L, Trentacosta C, Udo-Inyang I, Northerner L, Chaudhry K, & Williams A (2019). Self-regulation mitigates the association between household chaos and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 60, 56–64. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.10.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dearing E, McCartney K, & Taylor BA (2006). Within-child associations between family income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 42, 237–252. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Deater-Deckard K, Atzaba-Poria N, & Pike A (2004). Mother– and father–child mutuality in Anglo and Indian British families: A link with lower externalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(6), 609–620. 10.1023/B:JACP.0000047210.81880.14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Deater-Deckard K, Mullineaux PY, Beekman C, Petrill SA, Schatschneider C, & Thompson LA (2009). Conduct problems, IQ, and household chaos: A longitudinal multi-informant study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1301–1308. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02108.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Deater-Deckard K, Pylas MV, & Petrill SA (1997). Parent–Child Interaction System (PARCHISY). London, UK: Institute of Psychiatry. [Google Scholar]
  15. Delonis MS, Beeghly M, & Irwin JL (2017). Mother-toddler interaction quality as a predictor of developmental and behavioral outcomes in a very preterm sample. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(1), 15–53. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.63.1.0015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dumas JE, Nissley J, Nordstrom A, Smith EP, Prinz RJ, & Levine DW (2005). Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional, and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 93–104. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Egeland B, Weinfield N, Hiester M, Lawrence C, Pierce S, Chippendale K, & Powell J (1995). Teaching tasks administration and scoring manual. University of Minnesota. [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans GW, Gonnella C, Marcynyszyn LA, Gentile L, & Salpekar N (2005). The role of chaos in poverty and children’s socioemotional adjustment. Psychological Science, 16(7), 560–565. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffin KC, Boldt LJ, & Kochanksa G (2018). A secure base from which to cooperate: Security, child and parent willing stance, and adaptive and maladaptive outcomes in two longitudinal studies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(5), 1061–1075. 10.1007/s10802-017-0352-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodlett BD, Trentacosta CJ, McLear C, Crespo L, & Wheeler R (2017). Maternal depressive symptoms and at-risk young children’s internalizing problems: The moderating role of mothers’ positivity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(1), 77–104. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.63.1.0077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gray RF, Indurkhya A, & McCormick MC (2004). Prevalence, stability, and predictors of clinically significant behavior problems in low birth weight children at 3, 5, and 8 years of age. Pediatrics, 114, 736–743. 10.1542/peds.2003-1150-L [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrist AW, Pettit GS, Dodge KA, & Bates JE (1994). Dyadic synchrony in mother–child interaction: Relation with children’s subsequent kindergarten adjustment. Family Relations, 43, 417–424. [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrist AW, & Waugh RM (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Developmental Review, 22, 555–592. 10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00500-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Henry CS, Morris AS, & Harrist AW (2015). Family resilience: Moving into the third wave. Family Relations, 64, 22–43. 10.1111/fare.12106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merkangas KR, & Walters EE (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593–768. 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kochanska G, & Murray KT (2000). Mother–child mutually responsive orientation and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 71(2), 417–431. 10.1111/1467-8624.00154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lunkenheimer ES, Olson SL, Hollenstein T, Sameroff AJ, & Winter C (2011). Dyadic flexibility and positive affect in parent–child coregulation and the development of child behavior problems. Developmental Psychopathology, 23, 577–591. 10.1017/S095457941100006X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Masten AS (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10, 12–31. 10.1111/jftr.12255 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Matheny AP, Wachs TD, Ludwig JL, & Phillips K (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 429–444. 10.1016/0193-3973(95)90028-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pike A, Iervolino AC, Eley TC, Price TS, & Plomin R (2006). Environmental risk and young children’s cognitive and behavioral development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(1), 55–66. 10.1177/0165025406062124 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Smith C, Calkins S, Keane SP, Anastopoulos A, & Shelton T (2004). Predicting stability and change in toddler behavior problems: Contributions of maternal behavior and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 40, 29–42. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.1.29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Supplee LH, Unikel EB, & Shaw DS (2007). Physical environmental adversity and the protective role of maternal monitoring in relation to early child conduct problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 166–183. 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Vernon-Feagans L, Willoughby M, Garrett-Peters P, & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2016). Predictors of behavioral regulation in kindergarten: Household chaos, parenting and early executive functions. Developmental Psychology, 52(3), 430–441. 10.1037/dev0000087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wachs TD (1986). Noise in the nursery: Ambient background noise and early development. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 3, 23–33. [Google Scholar]
  35. Watamura SE, Phillips DA, Morrissey TW, McCartney K, Bub K (2011). Double jeopardy: Poorer social-emotional outcomes for children in the NICHD SECCYD experiencing home and child-care environments that confer risk. Child Development, 82, 48–65. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01540.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES