Profiles of Family-Based Social Experiences in the First Three Years Predict Early Cognitive, Behavioral, and Socioemotional Competencies

Abstract

This study utilizes latent profile analyses to identify unique configurations of children’s family-based social experiences during the first three years of life and examine differences across profiles with respect to developmental outcomes at 36 and 48 months of age. Seven family process variables were used: Maternal emotional functioning, maternal sensitivity, negative controlling parenting, cognitive stimulation, corporal punishment, adult-adult aggression, and household disorganization. Data were collected by the Family Life Project (N=1,087), a longitudinal study of families living in low wealth, non-urban areas, for whom the biological mother was the child’s primary caregiver from 6 to 36 months of age. On average, mothers were 26 years of age at the two months of child age. Approximately 36% of the families lived below the federal poverty limit, 41% identified as Black; and 49% of children were female. Latent profile analyses identified four groups: 1) Positive Exposure 2) Average Exposure 3) Problematic Adult Functioning, and 4) Problematic Parenting. Comparisons indicate that children in the Positive Exposure profile had the highest levels of socioemotional and cognitive outcomes compared to all over profiles. Children in the Problematic Adult Functioning and Problematic Parenting profiles had the most problematic child outcomes, with children in the Problematic Parenting profile scoring lowest overall. Results indicate that there is configural heterogeneity in family-based social experiences at the highest levels of risk and exposures to problematic parenting may be more consequential for later child outcomes than exposures to problematic adult functioning in the absence of compromised caregiving.

Family systems theory proposes that characteristics of the parent-child relationship, parent-parent relationship, and whole-family functioning interact to create nonlinear influences on child development (Cox & Paley, 2003). As such, research focused on single family variables or comparisons across variables may fail to represent the richness of family theory or capture the complexities of dynamic family processes (Mandara, 2003). In contrast, the current study utilizes person-oriented analyses to identify unique family profiles informed by seven domains of family-based social experiences and examines their relevance to children’s cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional competence.

The Intersection of Theory and Approach for Examining Multiple Family Experiences

Bioecological and family systems theories (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007; Cox & Paley, 2003) posit that the most proximal influences on early development are children’s direct experiences with family dynamics. These include hierarchically nested exposures occuring across levels of the family system. At the individual level of the parent, children observe others’ emotional states and behavioral patterns that manifest out of personality, stress management, and psychopathology characteristics. At the dyadic level, children interact with caregivers and experience a range of parenting styles and behaviors. At the whole-family level children are exposed to interactions between caregivers as well as the overall functioning of the family and household. Family systems theory provides a framework integrating hypotheses derived from traditional attachment theory, which posits direct effects of proximal parenting exposures, with hypotheses derived from the more contemporary emotional security hypothesis, which posits increases in child vulnerability due to exposures to inter-parental discord and broader family conflict (Davies et al., 2004).

The inherent challenges of simultaneously considering additive, nonadditive, and nonlinear effects across levels can be addressed by a person-oriented (typological) approach that identifies unique combinations of variables with higher-order interactions “built into” profile membership (Bauer & Shanahan, 2007). Variable-oriented approaches, by comparison, may fail to adequately capture this complexity due to distinct interrelations between variables across subgroups of families that ultimately are obscured by aggregating population characteristics (Bergman et al., 2003). The key distinction for a typological approach (as compared with multiple regression, for example) is that the unit of analysis is the individual’s lived experience – thus differences across groups should be more reflective of real-life conditions for a given member of that family type (Bogat et al., 2016). As noted by Mandara (2003), “the typological approach offers a systematic, empirically rigorous and reliable way to synthesize the nomothetic variable-centered approach with the idiographic, case-centered approach” (p. 129). The benefit of this approach is highlighted by two distinct but non-mutually exclusive sets of findings from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. The first (NICHD ECCRN, 2005) utilized a variable-oriented analysis to illustrate the linear intercorrelations of risk across families (illustrating correlated constraints and the rationale for cumulative risk modeling), and the second (Belsky & Fearon, 2004) used a person-oriented analyses to identify inconsistencies in risk across families (e.g., clusters defined by “good vs poor” parenting and “good versus poor” marriage) with differential prediction to child outcomes. Although it is analytically convenient to assume that the principle of correlated constraints (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996) is the primary driver of individual differences across families – with clusters of disadvantage at one end of the spectrum and clusters of advantage at the other – in reality, as evidenced by Belsky and Fearon, heterogenous subsets of families likely go undetected with this variable-oriented approach.

Person-oriented methodologies have recently gained popularity in developmental studies (see Cook et al., 2012; Copeland et al., 2009), but research on family functioning has long-embraced typological approaches to capture the richness of family systems theory. In 1974, Minuchin proposed four patterns of family functioning (or types) identified by family clinicians: Cohesive families, whose members are emotionally connected and supportive; separate families, whose members are emotionally distant; detouring families, whose parents allow spillover of marital conflict into parent-child relationships; and triangulating families, characterized by parental conflict and alliances between one parent and child versus the other parent. These patterns were later documented in two-parent families with children between 6 and 10 years of age using parent and child self-report (Kerig, 1995). Subsequently, Johnson (2003) applied cluster analysis to observational data of families of elementary-school age children (including family level cohesion, strength of the marital subsystem, and strengths of the father-child and mother-child subsystems) to identifying cohesive, separate, and triangulating families, with membership in the latter two clusters associated with increases in teacher ratings of externalizing behaviors during the elementary school years (Johnson, 2003).

Extending this work into specific tests of the emotional security hypothesis, Davies and colleagues (2004) used cluster analysis to identify cohesive families (with high warmth and clear boundaries across relationships), disengaged families (with high marital adversity and low relational involvement), enmeshed families (with high conflict across relationships), and adequate families (with moderate relational adversity coupled with high levels of warmth). For a replication of these family types using latent class analyses with the same sample, see Sturge-Apple and colleagues (2010). Children from both disengaged and enmeshed families exhibited higher levels of emotional insecurity, externalizing, and internalizing symptoms. Furthermore, children from enmeshed families had the most widespread and pervasive negative outcomes – perhaps due to the limited buffering between children and parental conflict as a result of parent’s use of psychological control and inconsistent discipline (Davies et al., 2004).

Belsky and Fearon (2004) explored a similar question using latent class analyses with marriage quality and parenting sensitivity data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Based on data collected between 6 and 54 months of child age, they identified five classes that could be subdivided into two sets. The first set of three classes reflected ordinal consistency in the correlation between marriage quality and parental sensitivity. This included a consistently supportive class (high on both marriage quality and sensitive parenting), a consistently moderate/adequate class (average on both marriage quality and sensitive parenting), and a consistently risky class (low on both marriage quality and sensitive parenting). The second set included two classes that reflected inconsistencies in marriage quality and parental sensitivity. This included a good-parenting/poor-marriage class and a poor-parenting/good-marriage class. Interestingly, in terms of child outcomes, children from the good-parenting/poor-marriage class appeared similar to the consistently supportive class and children from the bad-parenting/good-marriage class were similar to the consistently risky class.

Sturge-Apple and colleagues (2014) used latent class analyses with data on marital conflict and violence, parental sensitivity, and harsh and punitive parenting among families with two year old children. Three classes were observed: An adequate functioning class (comprised of low marital conflict, high parental sensitivity and low harshness), a spillover class (comprised of high marital conflict, high parental harshness and low sensitivity) and a compartmentalization class (comprised of high martial conflict and low parental harshness and high sensitivity). Again, the spillover class (conceptually similar to Minuchin’s detouring pattern, Davies et al.’s enmeshed cluster, and Belsky and Fearson’s consistently risky class) had the most severe and pervasive negative outcomes, whereas the compartmentalization class (similar to Belsky and Fearson’s good-parenting/poor-marriage class) showed impaired outcomes but less severe than in families for which marital conflict was paired with parental harshness and insensitivity.

Expanding the Conceptualization of Family Profiles Based on Multiple Social Experiences

The current study uses latent profile analyses (LPA) to identify types of families characterized by a broader range of family constructs than has previously been conducted. We set the following three criteria as necessary for including a family construct in the LPA: (a) empirical evidence that the construct is associated with at least one cognitive, behavioral, or socioemotional competency in early childhood; (b) the availability of multiple indicators of the construct; and (c) the availability of longitudinal data over the first three years of life. Based on these criteria, we identified seven family constructs that also conformed with bioecological theory criteria for proximal process variables: (1) Maternal impaired emotional functioning, (2) maternal sensitivity, (3) maternal negative and controlling parenting, (4) corporal punishment practices, (5) cognitive stimulation, (6) adult-adult aggression, and (7) household disorganization. Next, we provide empirical definitions and empirical rationale for each domain (in addition, the Supplemental Materials provides addition information for each construct).

Maternal impaired emotional functioning.

Maternal impaired emotional functioning includes depression and anxiety symptoms and consistently predicts developmental outcomes (for a meta-analytic review see Goodman et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that impaired emotional functioning compromises attachment relationships, increases the likelihood of internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Cummings & Davies, 1994), and limits executive functioning development (Hughes et al., 2013).

Maternal sensitivity.

Mother’s sensitive caregiving involves attending to, interpreting, and responding to her child’s cues and signals regarding physical and emotional needs and has been associated with child attachment quality (De Wolff & van Ijzendoorn, 1997), internalizing (van der Voort et al., 2014) and externalizing behaviors ((Mills-Koonce et al., 2016), language development (Pungello et al., 2009), attention and executive functioning (Swingler et al., 2018), and social competence (Barnett et al., 2012).

Maternal Negative and controlling parenting.

Mother’s negative and controlling parenting behaviors involve physical or verbal directives to intrusively impose their agenda on the child in an abrupt and harsh manner. Negative and controlling parentaling is positively associated with internalizing (Gueron-Sela et al., 2018) and externalizing problems (Mills-Koonce et al., 2016) and negatively associated with executive functioning (Blair et al., 2011), prosocial behavior (Barnett et al., 2012), and social adjustment (Cookston et al., 2003).

Cognitive stimulation.

Parents provide cognitively stimulating experiences for children by using developmentally appropriate language and learning materials to scaffold activities, focus child attention, and promote engagement and mastery of tasks. Observational measures of cognitive stimulation have been associated with reading ability (Tucker-Drob & Harden, 2012) and early social skills (Blandon & Scrimgeour, 2015). Similarly, checklist measures have also been associated with cognitive development (Knauer et al., 2019).

Corporal Punishment.

Corporal punishment involves physical discipline such as spanking and hitting as a means of child behavior modification. Research indicates that these practices are positively correlated with externalizing behaviors, depression, and disrupted parent-child relationships (for review and meta-analysis see Gershoff, 2002). Although some studies report that associations between physical discipline and child outcomes can be moderated by family race and culture (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996), intensity or frequency of physical discipline (Larzelere, 2000), or caregiver’s sensitivity and emotional support (Towe-Goodman & Teti, 2008), other studies report weak to no moderation effects (Lansford et al., 2011).

Adult-Adult Aggression.

Adult-adult aggression includes verbal and physical assaults between adults in the family context, often involving conflict between parents and caregivers which may be directly observed or experienced indirectly through its effects on other aspects of the family system (Cox & Paley, 1997). Research suggests that child exposure to aggression in the home undermines feelings of safety and emotional security, thus compromising the ability to develop socioemotional competencies and adaptive regulatory strategies (Cummings & Davies, 2010) and predicts problematic child outcomes, including compromised parent-child relationships (Levendosky et al., 2011) and deficits in social competence and emotional and behavioral problems (for a meta-analysis, see Kitzmann et al., 2003).

Household disorganization.

Sameroff (2010) described household chaos and disorganization as “high levels of noise, excessive crowding, clutter, and lack of structure” (p. 258). Chaotic home environments are associated with numerous child outcomes, including deficits in child cognitive and communication abilities (Wachs & Chan, 1986), impaired attention and regulatory behaviors (Blankson et al., 2015), lower prosocial behavior, and higher internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Ackerman et al., 2004).

The Current Study

Based on conceptualizations of family functioning derived from family systems theory and informed by prior family typology studies, we hypothesized the identification of two profile subsets. We predicted the first subset to be characterized by ordinal consistency in risk across variables (based on the collinearity of risks driven by correlated constraints). This subset should manifest as two or three profiles observed to represent overall low risk (akin to cohesive or consistently supportive families) and overall high risk (akin to detouring, enmeshed, consistenly risky, spillover families), and potentially an intermediate risk group. We predicted a second subset of families to be characterized by inconsistencies in risk across variables (based on the nonlinearity of risk driven by the compensatory functioning of parents). This subset was expected to manifest as one profile characterized by adversity at the adult-level but adequate parent-child interaction qualities (akin to compartmentalization or good-parenting/poor-marriage families) and a profile characterized by high adult functioning but problematic parenting (akin to poor-parenting/good-marriage families). Regarding child outcomes, we hypothesized that children in profiles characterized by consistent low risk would display higher cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional competencies compared with all other children. With respect to profiles of higher risk exposures, in accordance with attachment theory we hypothesized that the most profound negative outcomes would be observed for profiles marked by problematic parenting behaviors. Similarly, based on the emotional security hypothesis, we hypothesized moderate negative outcomes to be observed for profiles marked by problematic adult functiong but adequate parental functioning. This study was not preregistered.

Methods

Participants

Data were drawn from The Family Life Project (FLP), a large multi-site longitudinal study of children and families living in rural, low wealth communities in the United States. Families were recruited at childbirth using a stratified random sampling procedure to yield a representative sample of 1,292 families recruited over a 1-year period. Families living in poverty were over-sampled and African American families living in North Carolina were oversampled (for additional information on recruitment and sampling, see Vernon-Feagans & Cox, 2013). The current analyses are based on a sample of 1,087 families for whom the biological mother was the child’s primary caregiver and the family had at least two timepoints of data across 6–36 months. Of these families, 1,073 were seen at 6m (99%), 1,083 at 15m (99%), 1067 at 24m (98%), 1040 were seen at 36m (96%), and 972 (89%) were seen at 48m. Overall, 41% of families (n = 442) were missing data on one or more study variables, representing 6% of all data points used in analyses. Further information on missingness and demographic differences in families excluded from the current analyses can be found in the Supplemental Materials. For families included in analyses, 36% were at or below the federal poverty threshold. Approximately half the children were female (49%); average materal age was 26 years (SD = 5.8), and 41% identified as Black.

Procedures

The data collection relevant for the current analyses was conducted between 2002 and 2006. Families received their first home visit when study children were 2 months of age, during which mothers reported on family demographics. Subsequent home visits with the mother and target child occurred at 6, 15, 24, 36 and 48 months of age. All study protocols were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Boards (Family Life Project: 2- through 6-Month Participation, UNC Chapel Hill, study number 05–0121; Family Life Project: 15- through 48-Month Participation, UNC Chapel Hill, study number 05–0281), and consent was obtained from all study participants before data were collected. Each home visit included interview and questionnaire items; at the 36-month time point research assistants administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence, the Preschool Language Scale-4 with children, and an executive functioning battery; at the 48-month time point research assistants again administered the executive functioning battery.

In addition to survey items and direct assessments, two observational methods of parent-child dynamics were collected at each time point – a video recorded parent-child interaction and the Home Observation for Measurement of Environment checklist. At the 6- and 15-month home visits, parents and children were given a standardized set of developmentally appropriate toys and asked to play together as they normally would whenever they had free time during the day. At the 24- and 36-month home visits, primary caregivers and their children were seated at a table and were asked to complete a set of three puzzles of increasing difficulty. Caregivers were instructed that the task was for the child to complete, but to provide assistance to their child as they felt necessary. Both the free-play and the puzzle tasks lasted 10 min and were recorded for later coding of parenting behaviors by trained and reliable coders who were unaware of the study’s hypotheses. Seven subscales were used to evaluate primary caregiver behavior during the mother–child interaction session, including sensitivity, detachment/disengagement, positive regard, intrusiveness, animation, stimulation of development, and negative regard (Cox & Crnic, 2002). Coders gave a single rating on each of these codes based on the overall quality of the entire interaction using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all characteristic (1) to highly characteristic (7). At least 30% of all interactions at each time point were double coded for reliability; differences in scores were conferenced to create final scores reached by consensus between two coders. Reliability was calculated using single rater, two-way mixed intraclass correlations (ICC > .80 for all subscales and coder pairs).

The Infant/Toddler version of the Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (HOME) was measured at 6, 15, 24 months and the preschool version of the HOME was administered at the 36-month home visit. The HOME Inventory is designed to measure the quality and quantity of stimulation and support available to a child (HOME; Bradley, 1994). Trained home data collectors completed the HOME inventory based on direct observation of the home environment and parent-child interactions and conversation with the primary caregiver.

Measures

Family-Based Social Experience Profile Indicators

Seven constructs were chosen as for children’s family-based social experience profiles, each with longitudinal measurement at 6, 15, 24 and 36 months and most with multiple measures at each time point. Indicators include maternal impaired emotional functioning, sensitive parenting, negative and controlling parenting, cognitive stimulation, corporal punishment, adult-adult aggression, and household disorganization (see Table 1 for measurement details).

Table 1.

Family-Based Social Experience Profile Indicators

Domain	Instruments	Measure	Reliability at Assessment
				6m	15m	24m	36m
Maternal Impaired Emotional Functioning	BSI	Global Severity Index	α	.91	.93	.94
	CESD	Total Depression Score	α			.91	.91
	Optimism Questionnaire	Optimism composite (rev)	α			.77	.79
Sensitive parenting	Parent-child interaction*	Sensitivity, Detachment (rev), Positive Regard, Animation	ICC	.88	.89	.86	.79
	H.O.M.E.	Responsivity Composite	α	.77	.78	.79	.82
Negative & controlling parenting	Parent-child interaction*	Negative regard, intrusiveness	ICC	.64	.57	.70	.70
	H.O.M.E.	Negative Control Items	α	.60	.65	.74	.63
Learning and Cognitive Stimulation	Parent-child interaction*	Stimulation of Cognitive Development	ICC	.86	.89	.92	.93
	H.O.M.E.	Learning Materials Composite	α	.80	.89	.80	.80
Corporal Punishment	H.O.M.E.	Spanking Items	α	.70	.64	.66	.73
	Conflict Tactics Scale - Parent and Child Form	Spanking composite±	α				.77
Adult-Adult Aggression	Conflict Tactics Scale - Couple Form	Verbal aggression, Physical aggression±	α	.84	.87	.89	.88
Household Disorganization	FLP Household Chaos Measure	Household Disorganization†	α		.66

Note.

^*= observed

^±= maternal-report and maternal report of secondary caregiver

^†= Variable created as a cross-time composite (α = reliability of longitudinal indicators)

Maternal Impaired Emotional Functioning.

Three self-report measures informed the impaired maternal emotional functioning composite. The Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI-18, Derogatis & Spencer, 1993) was administered at 6, 15, and 24 months and contains 23 items on which respondents rate psychological distress (ranging from 0 = not at all to 4 = extremely) (Derogatis & Spencer, 1993). At 24 and 36 months mothers were administered the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), which is a 20-item inventory of depression symptoms (e.g., “I felt sad”) rated on a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most or all of the time). Ratings across the 20 items were averaged to create a total depressive symptom score at 24 and 36 months. Finally, at 24 and 36 months mothers were administered the Optimism Scale (Brody et al, 2002), a 12-item adaptation of the Life Orientation Test (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), including positive items such as “In uncertain times, you usually expect the best” and negative items such as “You rarely count on good things happening to you”.

Sensitive and Responsive Parenting.

Using coded behaviors from the parent-child interactions, a sensitive parenting composite was created at each time point (6, 15, 24, and 36 months) as the average of ratings for sensitivity, detachment/disengagement (reverse-scored), positive regard, and animation (Mills-Koonce et al., 2016). A responsivity composite from the H.O.M.E. was created at the 6-, 15-, 24-, and 36-month time points.

Negative and Controlling Parenting.

Using the coded behaviors from the parent-child interactions, a negative and controlling parenting composite was created at each time point (6, 15, 24, and 36 months) as the average of ratings for intrusiveness and negative regard (Mills-Koonce et al., 2016). Relevant items from the HOME acceptance scale were selected at the 6-, 15-, 24-, and 36- month time points that were indicative of negative control, including caregiver shouts, expresses annoyance or hostility, scolds or criticizes child, and interferes or restricts.

Cognitive Stimulation.

The stimulation of cognitive development scale scores from the parent-child interaction observations at each time point (6, 15, 24, and 36 months) was used along with a learning materials composite from the H.O.M.E. from each time points.

Corporal Punishment.

At 36-months mothers were administered the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale Caregiver-Child Version (CTS-PC; Straus, 1979; Strassberg et al., 1994), which is a 35-item measure of intra-family conflict and violence between adults and children in the household. Mothers reported on their use of physical punishment and the secondary caregiver’s use of physical punishment using items rated on a 7-point scale (ranging from 0 = never to 6 = almost every day); the most frequent spanking reported (by self or secondary caregiver) was used. Additionally, spanking items were averaged from the H.O.M.E. at each time points.

Adult-Adult Aggression.

Adult-adult aggression was measured via self-report using the Conflict Tactics Scale Form (CTS-R; Straus & Gelles, 1990) at 6, 15, 24, and 36 months. The CTS-R is a self-report measure completed by the primary caregiver which list possible responses to conflict and asks respondents to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (where 0 = never and 7 = more than 20) how often in the past 12 months they behaved that way with a cohabitating romantic partner or, the absence of this person, a co-residentail maternal grandparent. Mothers also reported on how often this person behaved that way. Mothers’ reports on the verbal aggression and physical aggression subscales were used to create a single adult-adult aggression variable at each timepoint. If there was no secondary caregiver in the household then adult-adult aggression was set to ‘0’ for that time point since no adult-adult aggression was experienced by the child.

Household Disorganization.

Indicators of household chaos were assessed at 6, 15, 24, 36 months of child age. A household disorganization composite was created using the following 5 indicators across time: (1) the average number of hours the TV was on each day as reported by the mother; (2) average household density, which was computed by dividing number of rooms in the home by the number of people residing in the home; (3) household preparation for the home visit rated by research assistants (0 = cannot rate, 1 = surprise/difficulty, 2 = aware, but unprepared, 3 = aware/ready, 4 = good hosts); (4) the cleanliness of the household rated by research assistants (0 = cannot rate, 1 = very dirty, 2 = slightly dirty, 3 = messy, 4 = clean); and (5) the level of neighborhood noise rated by research assistants (0 = cannot rate, 1 = very quiet, 2 = average, 3 = noisy, 4 = very noisy). The last three indicators were based on the post-visit inventory used in the Fast Track intervention study (Dodge et al., 1994). Factor analysis guided the composite of a longitudinal household disorganization variable following guidelines from Vernon-Feagans and colleagues (2012), which were converted to z-scores.

Child Outcomes

Mother report and direct child assessment measures were collected on child cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional competencies at 36 and 48 months of age.

Child Behavior.

Child problem behavior and prosocial behavior was measured using the parent report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) when the child was 36 and 48 months of age. Items were rated on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). The current analyses used the Total Problem Behavior (ɑ’s = .82 and .81 for 36 and 48 months, respectively) and Prosocial Behavior (ɑ’s = .68 and .70 for 36 and 48 months, respectively). Social Competence (ɑ = .86) and Emotional Competence (ɑ = .86) were assessed at 36 months by parent-report using the Social Competence Scale (CPPR Group, 1995).

Child Expressive Communication.

The Expressive Communication subscale of the Preschool Language Scale-4 (PLS-4; Zimmerman et al., 2002) was used to evaluate children’s expressive language at the 36-month visit. The Expressive Communication subscale is used to determine how well the child communicates with others. Tasks measure verbal development and social communication. The child is asked to name common objects, use concepts that describe objects, express quantity, and use specific prepositions, grammatical markers, and sentence structures. The PLS-4 age expressive communication scores were used in analyses.

Child IQ.

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence (WPPSI; Wechsler, 2002). At the 36-month visit children completed the Vocabulary and Block Design subscales of the WPPSI, which were combined to create an estimated full-scale IQ (Sattler, 2001).

Child Executive Functioning.

Executive Functioning was measured at 36 and 48 months of age with a series of tasks administered in flipbook format with RA-recorded responses on a laptop. The administration procedures, psychometric properties of individual tasks and the overall battery score, retest reliability, and criterion validity of these tasks have been elaborated elsewhere (Willoughby & Blair, 2011). These tasks included Working Memory Span (Working Memory), Silly Sounds Stroop (Inhibitory Control), Spatial Conflict (Inhibitory Control), Animal Go No-Go (Inhibitory Control), and Something’s the Same (Attention Shifting). The overall battery score was used as a measure of child executive functioning.

Anxiety Symptoms.

Mothers reported on their child’s anxiety symptoms using the Spence Preschool Anxiety Scale (Spence et al., 2001) at 48 months. The total anxiety symptoms scale (ɑ = .88) consists of 28 items assessing levels of child anxiety; items are rated from 0 to 4, where 4 indicates the item is very often true in describing their child.

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptom Ratings.

ADHD symptoms were measured at 48 months of age by parental report of each the 18 DSM symptoms for ADHD (ɑ = .93) as rated on a four-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 3 = very much).

Demographic Covariates

Child race, gender, state of residence, and maternal age, ethnicity, and education were all measured via parent-report at the 2-month visit. For household income, the FLP based household income on anyone who resides in the household, the contributions of income from those individuals, and other sources of household income. Individuals were considered to be co-residents if they spent three or more nights per week in the child’s household. Family income-to-needs ratio was calculated at every time point from 6–36 months as the total annual household income divided by the federal poverty threshold for a family of that size and composition. Average income-to-needs ratios were calculated across data collection visits.

Analytic Strategy

Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of families with similar family-based social experiences using Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2018). A series of data reduction steps were conducted prior to conducting the LPA, beginning with standardizing all variables as z-scores. Based on a combination of prior theory, research, and exploratory factor analyses, cross-time composites were created for each family based social experience constructs (for details, see Supplemental Materials). Single summary scores for each of the seven domains - maternal emotional functioning, sensitive and responsive parenting, negative and controlling parenting, learning and cognitive stimulation, physical punishment practices, adult-adult aggression, and household disorganization – were submitted to latent profile analyses. The optimal number of family-based social experience profiles was selected based on both statistical and practical considerations (i.e., Akaike, Bayesian, and sample size adjusted Bayesian information criteria, Lo-Mendal-Rubin likelihood ratio (LMR), along with posterior classification accuracy, entropy values, and the size and interpretability of the resulting groups).

Next, in order to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between family types and children’s social, emotional and cognitive functioning, we applied the Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars method for LPA with continuous distal outcomes (BCH; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014), using Wald chi square tests to determine whether the mean of each outcome differed across classes. The BCH method is considered to have the most robust estimation approach of three-step models in which the latent profile measurement model is estimated independently of distal outcomes (Bakk & Vermunt, 2016). Posterior probabilities of class membership are then used as weights to perform a weighted analysis of variance (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014); the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to correct for the number of comparisons (Holm, 1979). In addition to using sampling weights and stratification to accommodate the complex sampling design, we included site, child gender, family income-to-needs, maternal age, ethnicity, education, and partner status as covariates for the latent family classes; the group that exhibited the closest to average family experience was designated as the reference group. Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used to account for missing data.

All Family Life Project data collected prior to and including the 36 month time point is publicly available at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan (Vernon-Feagans, Crouter, & Cox, 2014). The 48 month data is not currently available for public use.

Results

Table 2 presents the bivariate associations between demographics and key model parameters. Table 3 presents bivariate associations between family-based social experience composites and child outcomes. A series of two to eight latent profile models was estimated; a four-class model was selected based on model fit, parsimony, and interpretability (Table 4). Although the AIC and BIC consistently decreased as the number of classes increased, the LMR likelihood ratio test indicated a four-class model was more favorable than the three-class model (p < .05), but the five-class model did not improve model fit above and beyond the four-class solution (p = .41). The average posterior probability for latent class membership is considered to be high (range = .87 - .91), per criteria established by Roeder and colleagues (1999) (posterior probabilities over .70 considered as high). Finally, the four-class model provided meaningful and interpretable family experiences profiles.

Table 2.

Associations between Family Experience and Child Outcome Variables with Demographic Variables

	Site c	Child gender d	Mother age	Mother race e	Mother education	Partner status f	Income-to-needs
Family Variables
Emotional state	.02	−.01	−.19*	.09*	−.31*	−.13*	−.26*
Sensitivity	.19*	−.02	.44*	−.37*	.55*	.34*	.45*
Negative control	−.16*	.13*	−.33*	.31*	−.45*	−.28*	−.36*
Cognitive stimulation	.25*	−.03	.42*	−.47*	.58*	.34*	.51*
Physical punishment	−.13*	.13*	−.24*	.24*	−.25*	−.15*	−.20*
Adult-adult aggress	.13*	−.01	−.07*	−.06*	−.07*	.29*	−.01
HH disorganization	−.04	.01	−.40*	.30*	−.61*	−.26*	−.60*
36m Child Outcomes
Social Competence a	.01	−.06	.07*	−.14*	.20*	.14*	.17*
Emotional Competence a	.03	−.10*	.09*	−.20*	.23*	.16*	.21*
IQ (WPPSI) b	.20*	−.15*	.27*	−.31*	.37*	.18*	.37*
Expressive Commb	.01	−.16*	.23*	−.18*	.39*	.15*	.33*
Behavior Problemsa	−.12*	.07*	−.28*	.23*	−.37*	−.25*	−.32*
Prosocial behaviora	.05	−.09*	.07*	−.18*	.21*	.13*	.18*
Executive Functionb	.26*	−.11*	.18*	−.24*	.24*	.17*	.24*
48m Child Outcomes
Prosocial behavior b	−.09*	−.13*	.03	−.10*	.12*	.11*	.11*
Behavior Problemsa	−.07*	.09*	−.25*	.19*	−.33*	−.23*	−.24*
Executive Function b	.25*	−.14*	.16*	−.29*	.28*	.19*	.23*
ADHD Symptoms	−.04	.11*	−.22*	.16*	−.30*	−.21*	−.20*
Anxiety Symptoms	−.04	−.06	−.17*	.17*	−.18*	−.14*	−.18*

Note:

^*p < .05

^aMother reported

^bDirect assessment

^cSite: 0 = NC, 1 = PA

^dGender: 0 = female, 1 = male

^eRace: 0 = White, 1 = Black

^fPartner status: 0 = Single, 1 = Partnered

Table 3.

Correlations among Family Experience and Child Outcome Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Family Variables
1. Emotional state	--
2. Sensitivity	−.25*	--
3. Negative control	.27*	−.48*	--
4. Cognitive stimulation	−.27*	.72*	−.44*	--
5. Physical punishment	.23*	−.24*	.38*	−.24*	--
6. Adult-adult aggression	.45*	−.04	.11*	−.05	.18*	--
7. HH disorganization	.32*	−.55*	.44*	−.57*	.25*	.11*	--
36m Child Outcomes
8. Social Competencea	−.22*	.21*	−.17*	.21*	−.18*	−.13*	−.21*	--
9. Emotional Competencea	−.20*	.26*	−.19*	.26*	−.18*	−.10*	−.24*	.73*	--
10. IQ (WPPSI)b	−.18*	.39*	−.41*	.46*	−.16*	−.01	−.45*	.23*	.26*	--
11. Expressive Commb	−.27*	.38*	−.35*	.45*	−.14*	−.08*	−.46*	.24*	.27*	.76*	--
12. Behavior Problemsa	.44*	−.39*	.36*	−.40*	.29*	.15*	.39*	−.44*	−.43*	−.36*	−.32*	--
13. Prosocial Behaviora	−.11*	.25*	−.19*	.27*	−.14*	−.07*	−.23*	.47*	.54*	.27*	.28*	−.39*	--
14. Executive Functionb	−.09*	.31*	−.29*	.32*	−.13*	.05	−.23*	.15*	.15*	.39*	.32*	−.21*	.11*	--
48m Outcomes
15. Behavior Problemsa	.44*	−.37*	.33*	−.39*	.23*	.19*	.34*	−.39*	−.38*	−.30*	−.31*	.63*	−.31*	−.17*	--
16. Prosocial Behaviora	−.11*	.17*	−.13*	.15*	−.08*	−.04	−.17*	.33*	.38*	.19*	.23*	−.32*	.47*	.02	−.44*	--
17. Executive Functionb	−.16*	.36*	−.33*	.39*	−.09*	.07	−.30*	.19*	.21*	.55*	.51*	−.26*	.19*	.37*	−.29*	.22*	--
18. ADHD Symptomsa	.38*	−.29*	.32*	−.31*	.20*	.16*	.30*	−.35*	−.33*	−.31*	−.32*	.59*	−.26*	−.21*	.72*	−.32*	−.28*	--
19. Anxiety Symptomsa	.33*	−.20	.16*	−.22*	.11*	.16*	.20*	−.18*	−.14*	−.09*	−.08	.32*	−.07*	−.04	.44*	−.12*	−.06	.36*

Note:

^aMother reported

^bDirect assessment

Table 4.

Comparison of Models for Latent Family Experience Profiles Across 6–36m (n = 1087).

Latent Classes	Log Likelihood	AIC	BIC	Adj. BIC	LMR aLRTa	p	Entropy
1	−10475.65	20979.29	21049.17	21004.7	---	---	---
2	−9710.69	19465.39	19575.19	19505.32	1503.03	<.01	.81
3	−9487.60	19035.19	19184.93	19089.64	438.36	<.01	.79
4	−9314.20	18704.39	18894.06	18773.36	340.71	<.05	.82
5	−9210.56	18513.12	18742.71	18596.61	203.00	.41	.83
6	−9118.60	18345.20	18614.72	18443.21	180.69	.30	.84
7	−9054.01	18232.02	18541.48	18344.55	126.91	.58	.84
8	−8987.54	18115.08	18464.47	18242.13	130.60	.21	.84

Note: Bold font indicates the model that best fit the data; AIC = Akaike information criteria; BIC = Bayesian information criteria; aBIC = sample size adjusted Bayesian information criteria, LMR aLRT = Lo Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test

^aLikelihood ratio compares model to nested model including n − 1 classes.

Figure 1 presents standardized mean scores for the family-based social experience composites informing each profile with labels assigned based on distinguishing configural characteristics. The largest profile (43%) was characterized by low levels of corporal punishment and adult-adult aggression, low impaired emotional functioning, and approximately average levels of exposure on the remaining indicators – this profile was labeled Average Exposure. A slightly smaller proportion of the sample (32%) was characterized by the most sensitive parenting and cognitive stimulation, along with the least amount of negative controlling parenting, corporal punishment, household disorganization, and impaired emotional functioning – this profile was labeled Positive Exposure.

Figure 1. Standardized Mean Scores for a 4-Class Model of Profiles of Family Experiences 6–36m.

Note: Values in bold represent distinguishing characteristics for latent classes.

Two smaller profiles composed the remainder of the sample. The Problematic Adult Functioning profile (8%) was characterized by very high levels of adult-adult aggression and impaired emotional functioning, along with moderate household disorganization, negative controlling parenting and corporal punishment. The Problematic Parenting profile (17%) was characterized by very low maternal sensitive parenting and cognitive stimulation, the highest levels of negative controlling parenting and household disorganization, but only moderate levels of corporal punishment and impaired emotional functioning in mothers.

Associations between Family Profiles and Demographic Characteristics

Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses examined associations between individual and family demographics and profiles of family-based social experiences (Table 5). Families with higher maternal education, greater income-to-needs ratios, and older mothers were more likely to be in the Positive Exposure group, whereas families with Black mothers were less likely to be in this group, relative to the Average Exposure reference group. Additionally, families with greater income-to-needs ratios and higher maternal education were less likely to be in the Problematic Parenting group, relative to the Average Exposure reference group. None of the covariates were significantly associated with membership in the Problematic Adult Functioning group relative to the Average Exposure reference group.

Table 5.

Odds Ratios for Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Demographic Variables and Family Profiles

	Positive Exposure (32%)		Problematic Adult Functioning (8%)		Problematic Parenting (17%)
	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Sitea	0.69	0.32 – 1.50	2.21	0.83 – 5.85	1.13	0.46 – 2.79
Child genderb	0.90	0.45 – 1.82	1.07	0.52 – 1.79	1.81†	1.08 – 3.02
Maternal age	2.17**	1.42 – 3.30	1.14	0.74 – 1.75	0.86	0.64 – 1.14
Maternal ethnicityc	0.05**	0.01 – 0.20	1.21	0.43 – 3.44	4.77†	2.15 – 10.61
Maternal education	4.64**	2.79 – 7.71	0.90	0.50 –1.60	0.33**	0.22 – 0.47
Partner statusd	1.99	0.96 – 4.15	1.74	0.99 – 3.05	1.07	0.81 – 1.42
Income-to-needs	3.77†	1.64 – 1.88	0.81	0.38 – 1.75	0.13**	0.06 – 0.30

Note: Average Exposure is the reference profile. All continuous predictors were standardized prior to estimating models; Superscript denotes covariates that significantly predict differences between a single class and the reference class

^†p < .10

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^aSite: 0=NC;1=PA

^bGender: 0 = female, 1 = male

^cEthnicity: 1 = black, 0 = not

^dPartner: 0 = single, 1 = partnered

Associations between Family Profiles and Children’s Developmental Outcomes

Table 6 displays the means and tests of mean differences across the family profiles for children’s social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes at 36 and 48 months of age. When examined across constructs and across time, children in the Problematic Parenting profile had the overall worst set of developmental outcomes. At 36 months of age, children in the Problematic Parenting profile had significantly fewer social and emotional competencies, less prosocial behavior, greater behavior problems, lower expressive communication and discourse skills, and lower IQ and executive functioning scores compared to the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure groups. Additionally, at 36 months children in the Problematic Parenting group demonstrated significantly less parent-reported prosocial behavior, lower IQ and lower executive functioning scores compared those in the Problematic Adult Functioning group. At 48 months of age, children in the Problematic Parenting profile had significantly less prosocial behavior, greater behavior problems, more anxiety and ADHD symptoms, and lower executive functioning scores compared to the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure groups. Additionally, at 48 months children in the Problematic Parenting group demonstrated lower executive functioning scores compared those in the Problematic Adult Functioning group.

Table 6.

Standardized Means and Group Differences for Child Outcomes at 36m & 48m by Family Profile

	Average Exposure	Positive Exposure	Problematic Adult Functioning	Problematic Parenting
	M (SE)	M(SE)	M(SE)	M(SE)	Overall χ2
36m Outcomes
Social Competence	.12(.07)B,C	.28(.06)B,C	−.31(.12)A	−.38(.08)A	54.48**
Emotional Competence	.11(.06)A,C	.38(.05)B,C	−.10(.12)A,c	−.46(.08)A,b	81.47**
Prosocial Behavior	.09(.06)A,C	.36(.06)C	.13(.14)C	−.48(.07)A,B	274.94**
Behavior Problems	−.14(.06)A,B,C	−.65(.05)B,C	.63(.12)A	.68(.07)A	209.40**
Expressive Comm.	−.06(.06)A,b,C	.76(.07)B,C	−.36(.13)A	−.61(.07)A	298.25**
Estimated Full Scale IQ	−.01(.06)A,C	.86(.06)B,C	−.04(.12)A,C	−.60(.07)A,B	89.18**
Executive Functioning	−.02(.06)A,C	.54(.06)C	.32(.17)C	−.46(.07)A,B	113.29**
48m Outcomes
Prosocial Behavior	.09(.06)C	.21(.07)C	.05(.14)C	−.30(.08)A,b	169.59**
Behavior Problems	−.12(.06)A,B,C	−.55(.06)B,C	.56(.16)A	.65(.08)A	26.15**
Anxiety Symptoms	−.14(.06)A,b,C	−.33(.05)B,C	.30(.19)A	.39(.11)A	157.65**
ADHD Symptoms	−.13(.06)A,B,C	−.48(.05)B,C	.42(.16)A	.65(.09)A	127.90**
Executive Functioning	.09(.06)A,C	.64(.06)B,C	.07(.15)A,C	−.52(.07) A,B	46.29**

Note:

^aIndicates significant differences with the “Positive” class”

^bIndicates significant differences with the “Problematic Adult Functioning” class

^cIndicates significant differences with the “Problematic Parenting, Disorganized” class

Capitalized superscript denotes significance after Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons

Children in the Problematic Adult Functioning profile had the second worst set of developmental outcomes when examined across construct and time. At 36 months of age these children significantly fewer social competencies and more behavior problems compared to the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure groups; they also had significantly fewer emotional competencies, lower expressive communication and discourse skills, and lower IQ compared to the Positive Exposure alone. At 48 months of age children in the Problematic Adult Functioning profile also had greater behavior problems and more ADHD symptoms compared to the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure groups; they also had significantly greater anxiety symptoms and lower executive functioning scores compared to the Positive Exposure alone.

Children in the Positive Exposure profile had the most optimal developmental outcomes when examined across construct and time. In addition to the results presented above, at 36 months these children had significantly more emotional competencies, greater prosocial beahvior, fewer behavior problems, more expressive communication, and higher IQ and executive functioning compared to the Average Exposure group. At 48 months of age, children in the Positive Exposure profile had fewer behavior problems, less anxiety and ADHD symptoms, and higher executive functioning scores compared to the Average Exposure group.

In terms of ordinal rankings from best to worst developmental outcomes, analyses indicate a profile sequence of Positive Exposure, Average Exposure, Problematic Adult Functioning, and finally Problematic Parenting. Overall, the Positive Exposure profile outperformed the Average Exposure profile on 10 of 12 measures, outperformed the Problematic Adult Functioning profile on 9 of 12 measures, and outperformed the Problematic Parenting profile on 12 of 12 measures. The Average Exposure profile outperformed the Problematic Adult Functioning profile on 4 of 12 measures and outperformed the Problematic Parenting profile on 12 of 12 measures. Finally, the Problematic Adult Functioning profile outperformed the Problematic Parenting profile on 4 of 12 measures.

Discussion

Within the family system, social interactions are embedded in hierarchical relationships with emergent characteristics that form unique patterns of experiences for children. Although the complexities of these experiences are difficult to model using variable-oriented techniques, person-oriented analyses allow for examination of patterns as families naturally cluster within common similar subsets (Magnusson & Stattin, 2007). These profiles provides insight into (1) the nonlinear relationships among these variables, (2) the prevalence of distinct types within a population, and (3) their relevance for the developing child. The synergy of family systems theory with a person-oriented approach provided the foundation for the goals of this study – to holistically characterize the family-based social experiences of children’s first three years of life and to examine their associations with cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional functioning at 3 and 4 years of age. To accomplish these goals, we selected seven domains of family-based social experiences with proximal influence on the developing child, we then used latent profile analyses to identify four conceptually meaningful family profiles, and finally we observed associations between profiles and demographic variables and child outcomes.

Although few person-oriented studies have included comparable multi-method, longitudinal assessments of this many unique family process variables, it is notable that several studies have revealed comparable typologies of risk (e.g., Cook et al., 2012) as well as comparable sets of profiles characterized by consistency and inconsistency across risk variables (Belsky & Fearon, 2004). The Average Exposure profile represented the largest type (comprising 43% of the sample) and was characterized by relatively average levels of all family-based social experiences. The Positive Exposure profile represented the next largest portion of families (comprising 32% of the sample) and was characterized by overall positive family-based social experiences. These profiles are significant for two reasons. First, they support the hypothesized set of profiles we expected based on ordinal consistency in risk and reflect relatively strong interrelationships among the seven indicators of family-based social experiences. Second, it is noteworthy that together they comprise 75% of the sample, suggesting that a vast majority of the children born during this period and in these geographic locations experience relatively low risk and high parental support.

The final two profiles reflect our second hypothesized set of family types characterized by inconsistencies in risk across variables. It is noteworthy that each profile reflects a distinct pattern of elevated threat to child development and provides a nuanced view of the dynamics within at-risk families. The Problematic Adult Functioning profile was the smaller of the two (comprising 8% of the sample) and was characterized by high levels of adult-adult aggression and impaired maternal emotional functioning, but only average or mild degrees of risk for other family process. Compared to previous studies, this profile is similar to Belsky and Fearon’s good-parenting/poor-marriage class (2004) and Sturge-Apple et al.’s compartmentalization class (2014) – although we should note that neither of these studies included maternal impaired emotional functioning, cognitive stimulation, corporal punishment, or household disorganization in their class analyses. Finally, the Problematic Parenting profile was slightly larger (comprising 17% of the sample) and was characterized by the lowest levels of maternal sensitive parenting and cognitive stimulation as well as the highest levels of negative and controlling parenting and disorganized home environments. Interestingly, this profile was not characterized by extremely high levels of adult-adult aggression or impaired emotional functioning, suggesting that it is more akin to Belsky and Fearon’s Poor-Parent/Good-Marriage class rather than the spillover class identified by Sturge-Apple and colleagues (2014). We did not observe a profile that reflected overall high risk exposure (such as a detouring, enmeshed, consistenly risky, spillover group reported in previous studies). This absence, along with the differentiated Problematic Adult Functioning and Problematic Parenting profiles, suggests that the principle of correlated constraints may function at average to low levels of risk moreso than high levels of risk in this population.

The family typology identified in the current latent profile analyses generally supported our hypotheses in terms of profile subsets (defined by consistency and inconcsistency across family-based social experience variables). Regarding specific profiles, these results largely supported our hypotheses with the notable exception of a missing overall high risk exposure profile. The absence of this profile may reflect a preponderance of families characterized by mothers with problematic adult-level functioning who somehow disproportionately invest in the parent-child relationship. The mother’s goal may be to buffer the child from exposure to adult-level dysfunction, or alternatively to establish emotional connectedness to the child to compensate for her own inter- or intrapersonal struggles. Unfortunately, none of the demographic information distinguished the Problematic Adult Functioning profile, thus we also lack any demographic insights into why none of these mothers exhibited spillover effects that would result in a profile characterized by overall high risk.

Beyond the theoretical benefit of describing the configurations of early family-based social experiences across families, the utility of these profiles is underscored by their power to predict individual differences in child functioning. Consistent with a variable-oriented additive-risk analysis, there was rank-order stability with respect to associations between these profiles and child outcomes: The Positive Exposure profile outperformed the Average Exposure on 10 of 12 developmental outcomes, and the differences in the remaining two outcomes were nonsignificant. This is not surprising given the uniform ordinal differences in risk and protective family-based social experiencess across groups. On the other end of the ordinal ranking of outcomes, the Problematic Parenting profile performed worse on all 12 developmental outcomes compared to both the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure profiles, and performed worse than the Problematic Adult Functioning profile on 4 of 12 outcomes. Importantly, of the 8 remaining outcomes, the differences between the problematic profiles were nonsignificant, meaning that the Problematic Adult Functioning profile never outperformed the Problematic Adult Functioning profile (which itself demonstrated worse outcomes than the Positive Exposure and Average Exposure profiles). Collectively, these findings indicate strong ordinal stabilities in risk: In the ordinal sequence (from better to worse outcomes), each profile yields increasingly worse outcomes compared to its predecessor and never outperforms its predecessor on any developmental outcomes.

The subset of two profiles characterized by the highest ratings of risk are perhaps the most interesting profiles due to their similaries and differences. Both are characterized by negative family-based experiences and both are associated with more problematic child outcomes compared to the Positive Exposure profile. However, children in the Problematic Parenting profile exhibited the most severe and pervasive developmental concerns with the fewest prosocial behaviors, lowest emotional competence, and lowest IQ and executive functioning scores. Consistent with traditional attachment theory, this suggests that the proximal processes of direct interaction between parents and children may provide a stronger conduit for the transmission of risk than exposure to adult-adult conflict or adult emotional impairment. However, the risks associated with the Problematic Adult Functioning profile are not inconsequential. Consistent with the emotional security hypothesis, impaired parenting behavior may not be necessary for exposure to inter-parental conflict or impaired maternal emotional functioning to adversely affect children’s development.

In contrast to methodological approaches that require researchers and clinicians to view early family experiences as sets of competing, additive, or cascading experiences, the current profile analyses demonstrate that not all dimensions of early developmental risk operate similarly across families. Many developmental and family studies report that adult functioning variables such as emotional symptoms and interparental aggression are associated with less optimal parenting behaviors, and through these caregiving variables we observe indirect effects of adult functioning on maladaptive child outcomes (e.g., Gustaffson et al., 2012). The current findings do not invalidate this premise; however, they do suggest the existence of a significant subgroup of families for whom the correlations between adult-adult aggression, impaired emotional functioning, and problematic parenting behaviors may be considerably weaker than aggregated population estimates would suggest.

This potential insight has implications for programs targeting family contexts as a point of entry for prevention or intervention. The configurations of family-based social experience in this sample appear nonlinear at the upper ends of the distributions for risk, resulting in profiles with distinct sources of problematic experiences. Although the developmental risks associated with the Problematic Parenting profile are more pervasive and severe, there are notable risks associated with the Adult Problematic Functioning profile as well. As such, interventions designed to identify and match programmatic support to family-specific risks (be it adult functioning or parental functioning) may have greater efficacy than programs that universally target a single family process irrespective of risk profile. While this is seemingly an obvious statement, the assumed linkage between depressive symptoms and nonoptimal parenting behaviors is ubiquitous in developmental literature (for example, see Goodman and Gotlib’s 1999 mediation model for how depression adversely influences child development). Although targeting the parent-child interaction may be the most proximal point of intervention for some families with emotionally impaired caregivers, the current findings suggest that directly targeting depressive symptomology and inter-parental conflict may result in better intervention efficacy for a subgroup of at-risk families.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

There are multiple methodological strengths to the current study. First, the use of a person-oriented approach to examining multiple dimensions of family-based social experiences allows for simultaneous consideration of numerous potentially non-linear associations across family processes and child development. Second, the number of unique indicators (seven), the repeated measures of each over time (at 6, 15, 24 and 36 months of age), multiple timepoints of outcome assessment (at 36 and 48 months of age), and multiple methods of data collection (self-report and observer-ratings) provide both high quantity and high quality of family process data to characterize children’s early life experience. Additionally, profile membership not only predicted child outcomes at 36 months (overlapping with the final time point used as an indicator of profile membership), but also consistently prediced outcomes one year later at 48 months of age. Finally, the Family Life Project sample is large and diverse and was recruited using a stratified random sampling procedure to be representative of families from non-urban counties, meaning that our interpretation of the number and characteristics of family profiles generated is independent of selection effects with respect to its larger population.

This, however, also belies the study’s primary limitation, which is the sample is specific to a low-income, rural population of primarily Black and White families. Consequently, the profiles of early family-based social experience may not translate to other populations, such as families living in urban areas or of other ethnic backgrounds. Additional studies are needed to replicate these analyses across other populations and to explore patterns of continuity and change in family profiles at later ages. Although there is sample-wide stability in profile indicators across this time period, it is possible that there are subgroups with divergent trajectories of family-based social experience. For example, there may be subgroups of mothers who exhibit deteriorating mental health during the first three years of life, while others improve in emotional functioning during this time. The average across times, as used in the current study, fails to consider this distinction and may misestimate the potential impact of these divergent experiences on children’s outcomes. Whereas the current study relies on multiple measures and multiple timepoint to create stable, reliable aggegate measures of experience, the tradeoff is the inability to assess the effects of potential continuity and change. Future studies may be able to detect such subgroups and include these trajectories as part of the latent profile analyses to obtain a more nuanced assessment of exposures during the early years of life. The culmination of such efforts may inform holistic approaches to family policy recommendations, for as noted by Newcombe (2003), “one can never draw valid conclusions about policy recommendations or individual decisions by simply concentrating on pure effects” (p. 1051). Future research should continue to apply new methodologies to increasingly capture the complexities of real-life family dynamics with the expectation that “pure effects” in families are likely the exception and not the rule.