Blame It On The Parents?

To what extent are parents responsible for the development of
disturbing behaviour in their young children?

 by Dr Hester Bancroft, BSc (Hons) Psych, DCPsych, CPsychol
It is a commonly held belief within our culture that parents are responsible for the development of disturbing behaviour in their young children. This belief has stimulated much psychological research in which, historically, the child has been seen as a passive and innocent recipient of the environment in which they develop and the focus has been almost exclusively on the importance of the mother-infant relationship. In particular, both John Bowlby’s attachment theory and Diana Baumrind’s model of parenting styles focus on the caregiver’s effect on the child and fail to take account of the effect the child has on his or her carer. However, in more recent years, not only have the child’s other key relationships been studied but also the child’s own role in shaping family interactions.

Arnold Sameroff’s and Michael Chandler’s transactional model of development (1975) provides a theory which recognises children’s active role in shaping their environment. They argue that developmental outcomes are a result of the continuous dynamic interplay between the child’s behaviour, the caregiver’s response, and the environmental variables that may influence both the child and the caregiver. Sameroff (1987) argues that children form part of a bidirectional, reciprocal interaction which influences their development. Exploring the extent to which parents should be held responsible for the development of disturbing behaviour in their young children requires a review of relevant theories and research. It is evident from this review that to focus on one single causal explanation is both misleading and inadequate when, as we will see, multiple factors influence an often complex sequence of events.

Like many of the early theories of development, Bowlby’s attachment theory focused almost exclusively on the quality of the biological mother’s parenting and the effect this would have on her child. He argued that this relationship determined the behaviour and emotional development of the child (Bowlby, 1973, cited in Oates, Lewis and Lamb, 2005). In an early piece of research he found that the juvenile delinquents he studied were more likely to have had an unsettling upbringing and used this as evidence to support his theory. However, whilst Bowlby established an association between the maternal deprivations they had experienced and their delinquency, he attributed a causal explanation to these findings that simply was not there and in doing so failed to recognise the effect the child may have on their carer.

Bolwby’s theory has, however, stimulated much productive research into attachment styles and, importantly, the ‘insecure’ attachment style has been consistently linked with psychological difficulties in later childhood (Greenberg, et al., 1993; Sund and Wichstron, 2002, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005).

In the 1960s, Baumrind studied possible links between parenting styles and developmental outcomes. Baumrind (1975, cited in Oates, Lewis and Lamb, 2005) argues that there are four types of parents which she named ‘authoritarian’ (who value obedience and impose their will upon their children), ‘authoritative’ (who are sensitive to and facilitate their children’s changing sense of self), ‘permissive’ (who believe parents should be non-intrusive but available) and ‘nonconformist’ (who are opposed to authority but are less passive and more controlling than permissive parents). Baumrind argued that authoritative parents, through firm but responsive parenting, enable their children to become more socially responsible and less prone to delinquency than the other parenting types.

While much research has supported Baumrind’s conclusion, there has been other research which has not. For example, Andrews and Dishion (1994, cited in Oates, Lewis, and Lamb, 2005) found that some parents unwittingly encourage conduct problems in their children while Anderson et al. (1986, cited in Oates, Lewis, and Lamb, 2005) found that conduct disordered teenagers often elicit coercive behaviour from their parents. MacKinnon-Lewis et al. (2001, cited in Oates, Lewis, and Lamb, 2005) demonstrated that the behaviour of parents and their children is influenced not only by the expectations they have of one another but also by their previous interactions. Baumrind, like Bowlby, fails to recognise the mutual effect that parents and children have on one another’s behaviour.

In 1968, Richard Bell became one of the earliest psychologists to acknowledge the effect children have on their carers. Bell disputed the interpretation of a piece of research by Sears et al. (1957, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes and Oates, 2005). The study found an association between parental style and children’s aggressive behaviour. Bell suggested not only that the interpretation of their results was incorrect (as a correlation does not provide a causal explanation) but also that the direction of effect should be reversed in order to consider that children’s aggressive behaviour may have affected parental style (PsycARTICLES: Citation and Abstract on ANA online website). Sameroff and Chandler further developed this concept with their 1975 transactional model.

Any parent of more than one child will tell you that each of their children evokes different feelings in them and provokes different reactions. Abraham Maslow stated that the birth of his children actually changed him as a psychologist. He claimed that the realization that his children were so profoundly different to one another even before birth meant he had to reject the behavioural framework within which he had been working (Maslow, 1973, cited in Oates and Stevenson, 2005).

A person’s temperament can be thought of as the biologically rooted individual differences that create tendencies to behave in particular ways (Oates and Stevenson, 2005). It is generally felt by parents that these behavioural tendencies can be observed soon after their baby is born. Sameroff and Chandler’s transactional model argues that parents, because of their own temperament and their own experiences, will respond to their baby’s needs in a particular way. The baby’s behaviour will in turn be influenced by the parental responses and so on. The way that the child’s temperament interacts with the temperament of the other people with whom the child communicates can be thought of as ‘goodness of fit’. The better the temperaments fit, the more positive the interactions are likely to be (Lerner et al., 1989, cited in Oates and Stevenson, 2005).

The transactional model of development argues development is facilitated by the bidirectional, reciprocal interaction between the child and their parents (Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). The transactional model proposes that developmental outcomes are a result of the continuous dynamic interplay between the child’s behaviour, the caregiver’s response and the environmental variables that may influence both the child and the caregiver. These variables include stresses that the family can experience such as divorce or separation, financial difficulties, the death of a family member or the birth of another child.

This model was the first to emphasise the effect of the child on their environment and argues that the child is an active participant in his or her own development, being influenced by both genetic information and life experiences. These experiences involve the interaction between the child and all the communicative partners within their environment not only including the child’s mother and father but also the child’s siblings, peers, grandparents, teachers and other social groups that are influential to the child.

There are known risk factors associated with problem behaviour and each of them has been the subject of extensive research (Lie et al., 1999 cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). Many studies have shown a correlation between low social status and the development of disturbing behaviour. However, as we will see, low social status is also linked to other risk factors.

Research has also shown a relationship between maternal mental illness and children’s development of disturbed behaviour. Postnatal depression (PND), in particular, has been the subject of a considerable number of studies. Murray (1992, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005) carried out a study looking at 18 month-old children whose mothers had previously suffered from PND. These children were more often reported to have temper tantrums, eating difficulties, suffer sleep disturbance, and demonstrate an insecure attachment style. Murray also found that the mothers tended to be less responsive to their infants. However, PND is also often linked to a poor marital relationship which, as we will see, is another risk factor. PND provides an excellent illustration of why any single causal explanation of the development of disturbing behaviour in children is both unhelpful and inappropriate as multiple factors (such as marital difficulties and maternal responsiveness) interact to create an environment that may, or may not, lead to disturbing behaviour in the child depending on the child’s own temperament and vulnerability.

Parental attitudes towards their children and the perceptions they have of their child’s behaviour have also been found to be important predictors of antisocial behaviour. It is, however, important to recognise that within any bidirectional, reciprocal relationship, both parties are capable of affecting and influencing the attitudes of the other person towards them (Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). In a fascinating study by Johnston et al., (2002, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005) children between the ages of 5 and 15, with a diagnosis of ‘attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’ were to studied to evaluate the short-term therapeutic potential of the drug Ritalin (a medication known to reduce motor activity and improve concentration). The study showed the medication influenced not only the children’s behaviour but also how their mothers reacted to their behaviour. When their child was on medication, the mother’s reaction to the problem behaviour was less negative. This enlightening piece of research illustrates how the direction of effect in human processes is not always straightforward.

It has been consistently shown that a child whose parents have a poor marital relationship has a higher risk of developing disturbing behaviour. Liu et al. (1999, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005) found in a study of Chinese families, that children whose parents classed their relationship as ‘very poor’ were an astonishing twelve times more likely to develop behavioural difficulties. Whilst the quality of parents’ relationships directly influences children’s behaviour, the behaviour of a child with a ‘difficult’ temperament or handicap may create additional stresses, not only between the child and each parent but also between the parents.

It is only in relatively recent years that the father’s role in the development of disturbing behaviour has been researched. An association has been found between a father’s absence and poor outcomes for the child (Scott, 1998; Carlson and Corcoran, 2001, cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). In addition, an association has been found between the father’s antisocial behaviour and the child’s development of disturbing behaviour (DeKlyen et al., 1998; Margolin and Gordin, 2000; Jaffee et al., 2003 cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). However, high levels of antisocial behaviour have been linked to many other risk factors including low social and economic status (Fergusson et al., 1995 cited in Woodhead, Rhodes, and Oates, 2005). This, once again, illustrates the inadequacy of a simple cause and effect model of development. The manifestation of disturbing behaviour is influenced by multiple factors which are intrinsically linked together.

Not only does the transactional model assist our understanding of why some children exposed to risk factors develop disturbing behaviour while others do not, but it also offers a useful explanation as to why the developmental outcome of children with certain neurological conditions is rarely easy to predict. Parent’s personal and cultural expectations, their own characteristics as well as their circumstances and support networks can all impact on their ability to cope with the needs of a child with a ‘difficult’ temperament or one born prematurely or with a physical or mental handicap. These children require a sensitivity and flexibility from their environments that facilitate transactions which will in turn lead to a positive developmental outcome (Sameroff, 1987). Subsequently, it is the appropriateness of the child’s environment and the goodness of fit with the child’s carers that will determine the developmental outcome.

The transactional model has many useful applications. In addition to providing an explanation as to why developmental outcomes can be hard to predict, the insights provided by Sameroff and Chandler’s model also enable effective frameworks to be created for intervention (Sameroff, 1987). However, the transactional model can be criticized for being difficult to assess. As the research supporting the transactional model takes a qualitative approach using, for the most part, observational techniques of families in natural settings, it can only provide insights into possible causal sequences in development rather than definitive causes (Sameroff, 1987).

In conclusion, the transactional model moves away from the traditional belief that a child is a passive recipient of external experiences and provides a unique model where the child is seen as actively participating in their development. The child’s positive developmental outcome is facilitated by a bidirectional reciprocal interaction between the child and their environment. As we have seen, there are multiple factors that can influence an often complex sequence of events which in turn can lead to the manifestation of disturbing behaviour in young children. Therefore, any model where the focus is on a single causal explanation for the way children develop is both inadequate and seriously misleading.

Whilst the quality of parenting is of huge significance to the positive developmental outcome of the child, it is important to recognise, as the transactional model does, that children too play an active role in shaping the environment in which they develop. It is, therefore, inappropriate to place sole responsibility for positive developmental outcomes with either the parents or the child. The influence that parents have on their child’s development will vary depending on the temperament of the child, the temperament of the parent and how able they each are to cope with different experiences, stresses, and circumstances that affect the family they are part of.

If you have found this article helpful but feel you would like more support please do get in touch and we can discuss what support we may be able to offer you.
Marketing by

References:

 

Anderson et al., (1986) in Oates, J., Lewis C., & Lamb, E. (2005) ‘Parenting and attachment’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


Andrews and Dishion (1994) in Oates, J., Lewis C., & Lamb, E. (2005) ‘Parenting and attachment’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


Baumrind (1975) in Oates, J., Lewis C., & Lamb, E. (2005) ‘Parenting and attachment’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


Bowlby (1973) in Oates, J., Lewis C., & Lamb, E. (2005) ‘Parenting and attachment’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


DeKlyen et al. (1988); Margolin and Gordin (2000); Jaffee et al. (2003); Henry et al. (1993) in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S., and Oates, J. (2005) ‘Disturbed and disturbing behaviour’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


Fergusson et al. (1995) in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S., and Oates, J. (2005) ‘Disturbed and disturbing behaviour’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.


Greenberg et al., (1993); Sund and Wichstron (2002) in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S., and Oates, J. (2005) ‘Disturbed and disturbing behaviour’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

 

Henry et al., (1993) in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S., and Oates, J. (2005) ‘Disturbed and disturbing behaviour’ in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. ‘Children’s Personal and Social Development’, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Related Articles