Familial Risk Factors and Emotional Problems in Early Childhood: The Promotive and Protective Role of Children’s Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine the promotive and protective role of general self-efficacy and positive self-concept in the context of the effects of early familial risk factors on children’s development of emotional problems from early to middle childhood. A total of 293 (T1; Mage = 2.81), 239 (T2; Mage = 3.76), and 189 (T3; Mage = 9.69) children from 25 childcare centers took part in the present study. Fourteen familial risk factors were assessed at T1 using an interview and a questionnaire that were administered to children’s primary caregivers. These 14 familial risk factors were used to compute a familial risk factors score. Primary caregivers also reported on their children’s emotional problems at T2 and T3 and on their children’s general self-efficacy at T2. Children reported on their positive self-concept at T2. Results showed that early familial risk factors were positively associated with emotional problems in the short and long term, although the long-term effect was small and non-significant. Further, the pattern of effect sizes of both promotive and protective effects of general self-efficacy as well as positive self-concept was found to be consistent in the short term. However, in the long term, no consistent support for either the promotive or the protective role of general self-efficacy or positive self-concept was found. These results suggest that general self-efficacy and positive self-concept might contribute to promote mental health and to protect from undesired effects of familial risk factors in the short term. Possible reasons for a lack of long-term effects are discussed along with practical implications.

Long-Term Promotive and Protective Effects of Early Childcare Quality on the Social–Emotional Development in Children

“…These findings confirmed hypotheses 1a and 1b and are consistent with a variety of other studies that have empirically documented the negative effects of early family risks on children’s socio-emotional development (e.g., Appleyard et al, 2005 ; Burchinal et al, 2006 ; Pungello et al, 2010 ; Slopen et al, 2014 ; Gach et al, 2018 ). As formerly noted by Sticca et al (2020) , the prevalence of the 14 early family risk factors varied from quite low rates (e.g., serious illness or death of a friend with a prevalence rate of 1%) to quite high rates (e.g., family relocation with 25%). Even though the present study did not involve a high-risk sample, it nevertheless shows the unfavorable effects of exposure to early cumulative risks.…”

“…In contrast, the scalar invariance constraints led to a strong model fit deterioration for emotional problems. This finding indicates that the way the various items represent the latent construct of emotional problems was stable over time, however, the differences between the mean values of the items and the mean values of the latent construct were not stable (see also Sticca et al, 2020 ). This measurement invariance pattern enables comparison of variances and covariances, but not that of means and intercepts ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ).…”

“…The following 14 dichotomized risk factors were subsumed to an overall cumulative score of family risks ( M = 0.08, SD = 0.08): single-parent family (10.0%), alcohol and/or drug abuse of father and mother (5.4%), current or previous family violence (3.4%), current or previous chronic partnership disharmony (10.6%), family income below the poverty threshold (12.7%), low maternal education (7.9%), immigrant background of the family (16.8%), serious illness or death of a parent (3.0%), serious illness or death of another family member (2.7%), serious illness or death of a friend (1.0%), serious illness of a sibling (4.1%), self-reported mental health issues of father and/or mother (4.9%), move of the family (25.0%), and current or previous issues with the law of father and/or mother (1.9%). A detailed description of all 14 dichotomized risk factors and the background of this cumulative approach can be found in Sticca et al (2020) . The family risk score was not linked to childcare process quality and children’s gender (see Table 1 ).…”

“…Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out from both T2 and T3. To reduce the complexity of the model and to adhere to the specification of using exactly three indicators for each single latent variable ( Little, 2013 ), we decided to include three items per subscale that met the following criteria: (1) high face validity, (2) satisfactory reliability, and (3) no problematic pattern of error correlations (see also Sticca et al, 2020 ). The model of conduct problems contained the items “often has temper tantrums or hot tempers,” “often fights with other children or bullies them,” and “generally obedient, usually does what adults request (recoded).” The items “many worries, often seems worried,” “often unhappy, down-hearted or tearful,” and “nervous or clingy in new situations, easily loses confidence” were selected for the model of emotional problems.…”

“…Family risk factors are characteristics of family members or of the family as a whole. Examples of family risks are socioeconomic aspects (e.g., poverty, low education of the parents, or single parenthood), interpersonal aspects (e.g., family conflicts, abuse, or maltreatment), critical life events (e.g., death or illness of important persons, frequent moves, and migration), and other risks such as substance abuse or parental mental illness (see Sticca et al, 2020 ). In particular, the accumulation of family risks is indicated as a major threat to children’s development (e.g., Rutter, 2000 ; Evans et al, 2013 ).…”