Associations between child theory of mind, mutuality in father‐preschooler dyads, and household chaos

Abstract

Early theory of mind development is influenced by a variety of experiences and contexts. Social interactions with parents and others are important for developing a theory of mind, but these social processes may be disrupted by aspects of the proximal home environment. The current study observed father‐child dyadic mutuality (a construct representing responsiveness, reciprocity, and cooperation during a structured interaction) and its associations with child theory of mind and household chaos in a sample of fathers and their 3‐ to 5‐year‐old children (N = 88 dyads). Dyadic mutuality was coded from videotaped structured tasks, household chaos was self‐reported by fathers through a questionnaire, and child theory of mind was measured through behavioral tasks. Measures of child expressive language ability, child executive function, and family socioeconomic status are included as covariates. Results show no main effect of either dyadic mutuality or household chaos on child theory of mind, but that the association between dyadic mutuality and child theory of mind was moderated by household chaos, whereby the association between higher observed dyadic mutuality and better child theory of mind abilities was evident only at low and mean levels of chaos. Findings suggest that higher levels of household chaos may disturb the beneficial social interactions between parents and children that influence theory of mind development. Additional contextual variables and processes are discussed.

Household clutter and crowding constrain associations between maternal sensitivity and child theory of mind

“…Consistent with literature examining other parenting constructs and other child outcomes, the findings of the current study suggest that aspects of the home environment can disrupt the proximal social processes between parents and children that support ToM development (Coldwell et al, 2006; Evans et al, 2005; McCormick et al, 2021). Homes that have higher levels of clutter and crowding may simply constrain opportunities for parent–child interactions, or higher levels of clutter and crowding may affect the nature of these interactions.…”

“…While the results of the full analyses are in line with extant research suggesting that chaos disrupts proximal processes in the home (Marsh et al, 2020;McCormick et al, 2021), future research should also seek to replicate these findings in larger samples. Furthermore, while the twin design was a strength in that all families had a minimum of two children, it may also be that families with multiple children in the current study have different levels of clutter than families with a single child.…”

“…Relatively few studies have investigated the role that clutter and crowding in the housing environment may play in the development of child ToM. However, one recent study involving a sample of father-preschooler dyads examined how household chaos moderated associations between the closely related construct of dyadic mutuality and child ToM and found that the positive associations between dyadic mutuality and child ToM were only observed at lower levels of household chaos (McCormick et al, 2021). These findings support the theory that an unclean, cluttered, and crowded housing environment may interfere with the proximal socialization processes that occur continuously between parents/caregivers and their children within their immediate environment throughout human development (Evans et al, 2005).…”

“…Another recent meta‐analysis suggests that SES shows small‐to‐moderate positive associations with parental sensitivity (Booth et al, 2018). Furthermore, aspects of household chaos are thought to serve as an index of family functioning distinct from SES (Deater‐Deckard et al, 2012; Dumas et al, 2005; Lecheile et al, 2020; McCormick et al, 2021; Pike et al, 2006), and while correlated, one is not merely a stand‐in for the other. Household chaos is still associated with child behavioural development in ‘middle‐class’ samples as well as over and above SES when SES is controlled for in statistical models (Wachs & Evans, 2010).…”