Infant temperament, early-childhood parenting, and early-adolescent development: Testing alternative models of Parenting × Temperament interaction

Abstract

Here we evaluate whether infant difficult temperament (6 months) functions as a vulnerability or more general plasticity factor when investigating effects of early-childhood parenting (8–42 months) on both positive and negative early-adolescent socioemotional development (age 8–11 years). Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N = 14,541) and a re-parameterized model-testing approach to distinguish alternative person × environment conceptual models, results indicated that temperament × parenting interacted in predicting externalizing (i.e., hyperactivity, conduct problems), but not other behavior (i.e., emotional symptoms, peer problems), in a (weak) differential susceptibility manner. While more and less supportive parenting predicted, respectively, fewer and more behavior problems, it did so more strongly for children who were more difficult as infants.

Revisiting goodness of fit in the cultural context: Moving forward from post hoc explanations

“…Note : The differential‐susceptibility model (b) partly overlaps with the diathesis‐stress model (a) in the quadrant showing the negative environment and negative outcome, and with the vantage‐sensitivity model (c) in the quadrant showing the positive environment and positive outcome. a–c present the strong versions of these models, which assume that less sensitive/susceptible individuals are not responsive to the influences of environment (Zhang et al, 2021). For the goodness‐of‐fit model (d), environmental factors should no longer be seen as absolutely positive or negative because the same environmental factor can be beneficial for some children and detrimental for other children, depending on the level of children’s characteristics…”

“…They commonly assume that environmental benefits or risks are usually conferred for children with a particular level of a characteristic, namely those with a particular diathesis, susceptibility, or sensitivity factor. But less susceptible individuals are either unresponsive or less responsive to the same environmental influences (Zhang et al, 2021).…”

“…We focus on the behaviors matching approach because of its predominant use in the literature and its flexibility in overcoming some of the limits of the other approaches. (Zhang et al, 2021). For the goodness-of-fit model (d), environmental factors should no longer be seen as absolutely positive or negative because the same environmental factor can be beneficial for some children and detrimental for other children, depending on the level of children's characteristics…”

Sequelae of infants’ negative affectivity in the contexts of emerging distinct attachment organizations: Multifinality in mother-child and father-child dyads across the first year

“…The concept of a "difficult" childa combination of certain early traits (e.g., negative quality of mood, low adaptability)dates back to Thomas and Chess (1977), but it has since been deployed extensively in developmental psychology and psychopathology. Over time, the "child difficulty" construct has become notoriously broad and variously defined, but essentially all definitions include the child's high negative affectivity or negative emotionality as a central feature (Bates, 1980;Kiff et al, 2011;Lengua & Wachs, 2012;Rothbart & Bates, 2006;Sanson et al, 2004;Slagt et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2021;van Zeijl et al, 2007).…”

Early Parenting in China: Associations and Interactions with Socialization Context, Child Self-Control, and Social Adjustment

“…With the rise of other models with well-defined patterns to characterize such interactions (see Figure 1), the goodness-of-fit model has been Yet the usefulness of the goodness-of-fit model should not be undervalued. The diathesis-stress, vantage-sensitivity, and differential-susceptibility models commonly hypothesize that highly susceptible individuals are more responsive to various positive or/and negative environmental influences, while less susceptible individuals are not responsive to those same influences (Zhang, Sayler, Hartman, & Belsky, 2021). However, this pattern is not always the case for person×environment interactions.…”