Personality and Mental Health 9: 44–57 (2015) Published online 19 January 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/pmh.1280
Family factors as moderators of link between reinforcement sensitivity and child and adolescent problem behaviour
VALERIYA B. KUZNETSOVA, Research Institute of Physiology and Basic Medicine, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Timakova str, 4, Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia ABSTRACT Moderating effects of family factors on the association between children’s reinforcement sensitivity and problem behaviour have been examined in a community sample of 533 children aged from 3 to 17 years. Family type and living in urban areas exacerbated the effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing, internalizing and impact of problems on everyday life; a high level of the father’s education exacerbated the effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing; family aggression and harsh parenting were found to strengthen the link between sensitivity to reward and the impact of problems on everyday life, whereas family cohesion buffered the negative effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing and the impact of problems in everyday life. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) is one of the most influential biologically oriented theories of personality (Leue & Beauducel, 2008). It explains trait variation by positing systems that regulate motivation and emotions and mediate reinforcement learning (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). The revised RST (Corr & Mathews, 2009) postulates three subsystems underlying fundamental dimensions of personality: the behavioural inhibition system, behavioural approach system (BAS) and the fight-fight-freeze system. These systems respond to a separate subset of reinforcing events with specific types of behaviour and are supposed to be mediated by a separate set of interacting brain structures (Bijttebier, Beck,
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Claes, & Vandereycken, 2009). Recent findings have clearly shown the distinction between processes mediated by the fight-fight-freeze system (fearfulness) and behavioural inhibition system (anxiety); however, they are thought to refer generally to sensitivity to punishment (SP) experienced as avoidant behaviour and negative affect (Smillie, 2008). Alternatively, BAS responds to rewarding or appetitive stimuli with approach behaviours and is generally associated with positive affectivity (Smillie et al., 2006), but some forms such as actions to seize rewards were related to impulsivity (Leone & Russo, 2009). Although there are a number of hidden complexities in RST, it is supported by empirical evidence, such as psychophysiological and behavioural tasks, psychopharmacologic manipulations and neuroimaging (Corr & Mathews, 2009).
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Moderators of problem behaviour in children
Extant empirical studies have showed that differences between children’s behavioural styles such as approach and avoidance tendencies are already apparent very early in life and stable from early childhood to young adulthood (Caspi & Roberts, 2001). These differences could predict vulnerability to related problems of adjustment (Coplan, Wilson, Frohlick, & Zelenski, 2006; Muris, Meesters, de Kanter, & Timmerman, 2005). Consistent with RST, heightened SP has been considered as a risk factor for internalizing disorders, whereas heightened sensitivity to reward (SR) has been assumed to make individuals more prone to externalizing problems (reviewed by Bijttebier et al., 2009). However, there is a growing body of evidence that children with similar temperaments or from similar backgrounds can develop quite differently because of the interactions between the child and the environment (Bush, Lengua, & Colder, 2010; Lengua, Bush, Long, Kovacs, & Trancik, 2008; Leve, Kim, & Pears, 2005). For instance, harsh discipline led to increases in externalizing in children with high impulsivity or low fear (Leve et al., 2005). But positive parental control buffered the relation between impulsivity and externalizing problems (Karreman, de Haas, van Tuijl, van Aken, & Dekovic, 2010). Impulsivity as an indicator of poor self-regulation also increases the likelihood of developing problems in the context of adverse conditions. It places individuals at risk for negative life outcomes (e.g. crime, limited employment opportunities, poverty and low educational attainment) (Lengua et al., 2008; Lynam et al., 2000). Besides the fact that statistically there is no difference between the predictor and the moderator in the interaction term (Baron & Kenny, 1986), we considered individual differences as a predictor and the environment as a moderator of important developmental outcomes following the assumption that personality is a relatively stable, inherent characteristic influencing each individual all the time, whilst environment tends to change (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). These
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
individual differences are determined biologically and genetically and could predict vulnerability to related problem behaviour, whilst environmental factors modify these predispositions in the process of development (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Following these presuppositions, we hypothesized that reinforcement sensitivity as a biological foundation would be the most potent predictor of problem behaviour; an adverse family environment could exacerbate problem behaviour, whereas positive family characteristics could serve as a buffer in respect to children’s maladjustment. Thus, the current study was designed to explore the moderating effects of family factors on the association between children’s reinforcement sensitivity and problem behaviour. Methods Participants The sample consisted of parent reports of 533 children from the community (50% female) aged from 3 to 17 years (M = 8.8; standard deviation (SD) = 3.3). Most of the participants (65%) lived in the city; others were from nearby rural regions (35%). Most data came from mothers – 77.5%, 7.5% of children were rated by fathers, 4.7% by both parents filling out the questionnaires together, 4.6% were rated by other close adults (grandparents or fosters) and 5.7% did not specify their relation to the child. A majority of children (73%) lived in an intact family, 17% with a single parent and 9% with a mother and a stepfather. For education, 11% of the mothers and 19% of the fathers had 10 years of schooling, 49% of the mothers and 46% of the fathers had college education and 40% of the mothers and 35% of the fathers had a university education. Concerning occupation, the parents ranged from unskilled to professional workers; 15% of the mothers and 6% of the fathers were unemployed. The average family size was four (SD = 1.1); 57% of the children had one or more siblings.
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
45
46
Kuznetsova
Procedure The sample for the present study was recruited as part of a longitudinal project following children and their families from 3 to 17 years of age. Families were contacted through schools by teachers and volunteers who searched for families according to the address specified at a previous wave of assessment. Parents completed a battery of measures to assess reinforcement sensitivity, problem behaviour and family background. Measures Sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward scales Sensitivity to reinforcement was evaluated using the SP and SR scales for children (Colder & O’Connor, 2004), a 33-item instrument scored on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The Russian version has been recently validated, with confirmatory factor analysis supporting the two-factor structure, SP (15 items, α = 0.82) and SR (18 items, α = 0.78) (Kuznetsova & Slobodskaya, 2010). The item content of the SR scale reflects individual differences in approach tendencies and described situations, in which a child could do something to obtain a reward (e.g. ‘your child often does things to be praised’), whereas items of the SP scale refer to avoidance behaviour in situations involving the possibility of adverse consequences and worry or cognitive processes produced by the threat of punishment or failure (e.g. ‘your child is often afraid of new or unexpected situations’). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Problem behaviour was evaluated by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 2001) that covers common areas of emotional and behavioural difficulties. The Russian version has been validated in a stratified random sample (Goodman, Slobodskaya, & Knyazev, 2005); the confirmatory factor analysis supported two higher-
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
order scales, externalizing (α = 0.78, 10 items, e.g. ‘often fights with other children’) and internalizing (α = 0.66, 10 items, e.g. ‘many worries or often seems worried’). The impact scale measures distress, social impairment functioning and burden to others (α = 0.82, seven items, e.g. ‘do the difficulties interfere with your child’s everyday life in the following areas (home life, friendships, classroom learning and leisure activities)?’). A family lifestyle questionnaire was developed to assess socioeconomic status and family environment. These factors were chosen according to multinational population epidemiological studies in a wide age range (Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991; Bourdon, Goodman, Rae, Simpson, & Koretz, 2005; Dunn, Deater-Deckard, Pickering, O’Connor, & Golding, 1998). The indicators of family type included intact family with both biological parents, step-parent or single-parent families. Sociodemographic indicators included the mothers’ and fathers’ education (1 = secondary school, 2 = college, 4 = university degree) and occupation (0 = unemployed, 1 = unskilled workers, 2 = technical workers, 3 = professional workers). On the basis of a previous study in a transitional society (Goodman et al., 2005), affluence was measured by items asking about the financial situation, living conditions, family possessions, travel and whether the child received pocket money (10 item, α = 0.72). Family cohesion was a 5-item scale (α = 0.72). One item asked to rate parent–child relationships on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘bad’ to ‘very good’. Four items from the General Functioning Scale of the MacMaster Family Assessment Device (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985) were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, e.g. ‘planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstand each other’ or ‘we confide in each other’. Family aggression was measured by an item asking whether the child has witnessed any quarrels between the adults in the family and, if so, did the quarrels involve physical aggression. Harsh parenting was measured by an item asking about methods of dealing with the
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Moderators of problem behaviour in children
child’s bad behaviour (1 = talking the problems over, 2 = withdrawal of privileges or additional chores, 3 = shouting, 4 = hitting). Parental monitoring was measured by an item asking whether a parent tried to know about the children’s whereabouts. Responses were scored on a 3-point rating scale (1 = always try to know, 2 = as much as possible, 3 = do not consider necessary). Neighbourhood safety was measured by an item asking whether the informant considered her or his place of living ‘dangerous’ or ‘safe’ in terms of criminality, as rated on a 3-point scale. Data analysis We examined the interactions between personality and family factors in the prediction of problem behaviour in a series of hierarchical multiple regressions following guidelines by Baron and Kenny (1986). Outcomes were three Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scales, externalizing, internalizing and impact in everyday life. Predictors were entered hierarchically in the following order: (1) gender and age were consistently entered as control measures; (2) main effects of SP or SR and proposed moderator (family environment variable); and (3) two-way interactions involving SP or SR and family environment variable. In order to reduce the problem of multicollinearity, we standardized all continuous variables entered in interaction terms. Statistically significant interaction effects were then tested in separate models for two moderating variables; interactions with family type were also tested in univariate GLM with family type as a factor and reinforcement sensitivity as covariate. Categorical variables were transformed in dummy variables; we compared the coefficients of predictors to test possible different effects between groups using the difference in the coefficients between the reference group and the comparison group. To gain an understanding of the overall pattern of the interaction, regression slopes of continuous moderators were plotted for the three groups, scoring >1 SD,
Family factors as moderators of link between reinforcement sensitivity and child and adolescent problem behaviour
VALERIYA B. KUZNETSOVA, Research Institute of Physiology and Basic Medicine, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Timakova str, 4, Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia ABSTRACT Moderating effects of family factors on the association between children’s reinforcement sensitivity and problem behaviour have been examined in a community sample of 533 children aged from 3 to 17 years. Family type and living in urban areas exacerbated the effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing, internalizing and impact of problems on everyday life; a high level of the father’s education exacerbated the effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing; family aggression and harsh parenting were found to strengthen the link between sensitivity to reward and the impact of problems on everyday life, whereas family cohesion buffered the negative effect of sensitivity to reward on externalizing and the impact of problems in everyday life. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) is one of the most influential biologically oriented theories of personality (Leue & Beauducel, 2008). It explains trait variation by positing systems that regulate motivation and emotions and mediate reinforcement learning (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). The revised RST (Corr & Mathews, 2009) postulates three subsystems underlying fundamental dimensions of personality: the behavioural inhibition system, behavioural approach system (BAS) and the fight-fight-freeze system. These systems respond to a separate subset of reinforcing events with specific types of behaviour and are supposed to be mediated by a separate set of interacting brain structures (Bijttebier, Beck,
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Claes, & Vandereycken, 2009). Recent findings have clearly shown the distinction between processes mediated by the fight-fight-freeze system (fearfulness) and behavioural inhibition system (anxiety); however, they are thought to refer generally to sensitivity to punishment (SP) experienced as avoidant behaviour and negative affect (Smillie, 2008). Alternatively, BAS responds to rewarding or appetitive stimuli with approach behaviours and is generally associated with positive affectivity (Smillie et al., 2006), but some forms such as actions to seize rewards were related to impulsivity (Leone & Russo, 2009). Although there are a number of hidden complexities in RST, it is supported by empirical evidence, such as psychophysiological and behavioural tasks, psychopharmacologic manipulations and neuroimaging (Corr & Mathews, 2009).
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Moderators of problem behaviour in children
Extant empirical studies have showed that differences between children’s behavioural styles such as approach and avoidance tendencies are already apparent very early in life and stable from early childhood to young adulthood (Caspi & Roberts, 2001). These differences could predict vulnerability to related problems of adjustment (Coplan, Wilson, Frohlick, & Zelenski, 2006; Muris, Meesters, de Kanter, & Timmerman, 2005). Consistent with RST, heightened SP has been considered as a risk factor for internalizing disorders, whereas heightened sensitivity to reward (SR) has been assumed to make individuals more prone to externalizing problems (reviewed by Bijttebier et al., 2009). However, there is a growing body of evidence that children with similar temperaments or from similar backgrounds can develop quite differently because of the interactions between the child and the environment (Bush, Lengua, & Colder, 2010; Lengua, Bush, Long, Kovacs, & Trancik, 2008; Leve, Kim, & Pears, 2005). For instance, harsh discipline led to increases in externalizing in children with high impulsivity or low fear (Leve et al., 2005). But positive parental control buffered the relation between impulsivity and externalizing problems (Karreman, de Haas, van Tuijl, van Aken, & Dekovic, 2010). Impulsivity as an indicator of poor self-regulation also increases the likelihood of developing problems in the context of adverse conditions. It places individuals at risk for negative life outcomes (e.g. crime, limited employment opportunities, poverty and low educational attainment) (Lengua et al., 2008; Lynam et al., 2000). Besides the fact that statistically there is no difference between the predictor and the moderator in the interaction term (Baron & Kenny, 1986), we considered individual differences as a predictor and the environment as a moderator of important developmental outcomes following the assumption that personality is a relatively stable, inherent characteristic influencing each individual all the time, whilst environment tends to change (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). These
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
individual differences are determined biologically and genetically and could predict vulnerability to related problem behaviour, whilst environmental factors modify these predispositions in the process of development (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Following these presuppositions, we hypothesized that reinforcement sensitivity as a biological foundation would be the most potent predictor of problem behaviour; an adverse family environment could exacerbate problem behaviour, whereas positive family characteristics could serve as a buffer in respect to children’s maladjustment. Thus, the current study was designed to explore the moderating effects of family factors on the association between children’s reinforcement sensitivity and problem behaviour. Methods Participants The sample consisted of parent reports of 533 children from the community (50% female) aged from 3 to 17 years (M = 8.8; standard deviation (SD) = 3.3). Most of the participants (65%) lived in the city; others were from nearby rural regions (35%). Most data came from mothers – 77.5%, 7.5% of children were rated by fathers, 4.7% by both parents filling out the questionnaires together, 4.6% were rated by other close adults (grandparents or fosters) and 5.7% did not specify their relation to the child. A majority of children (73%) lived in an intact family, 17% with a single parent and 9% with a mother and a stepfather. For education, 11% of the mothers and 19% of the fathers had 10 years of schooling, 49% of the mothers and 46% of the fathers had college education and 40% of the mothers and 35% of the fathers had a university education. Concerning occupation, the parents ranged from unskilled to professional workers; 15% of the mothers and 6% of the fathers were unemployed. The average family size was four (SD = 1.1); 57% of the children had one or more siblings.
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
45
46
Kuznetsova
Procedure The sample for the present study was recruited as part of a longitudinal project following children and their families from 3 to 17 years of age. Families were contacted through schools by teachers and volunteers who searched for families according to the address specified at a previous wave of assessment. Parents completed a battery of measures to assess reinforcement sensitivity, problem behaviour and family background. Measures Sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward scales Sensitivity to reinforcement was evaluated using the SP and SR scales for children (Colder & O’Connor, 2004), a 33-item instrument scored on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The Russian version has been recently validated, with confirmatory factor analysis supporting the two-factor structure, SP (15 items, α = 0.82) and SR (18 items, α = 0.78) (Kuznetsova & Slobodskaya, 2010). The item content of the SR scale reflects individual differences in approach tendencies and described situations, in which a child could do something to obtain a reward (e.g. ‘your child often does things to be praised’), whereas items of the SP scale refer to avoidance behaviour in situations involving the possibility of adverse consequences and worry or cognitive processes produced by the threat of punishment or failure (e.g. ‘your child is often afraid of new or unexpected situations’). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Problem behaviour was evaluated by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 2001) that covers common areas of emotional and behavioural difficulties. The Russian version has been validated in a stratified random sample (Goodman, Slobodskaya, & Knyazev, 2005); the confirmatory factor analysis supported two higher-
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
order scales, externalizing (α = 0.78, 10 items, e.g. ‘often fights with other children’) and internalizing (α = 0.66, 10 items, e.g. ‘many worries or often seems worried’). The impact scale measures distress, social impairment functioning and burden to others (α = 0.82, seven items, e.g. ‘do the difficulties interfere with your child’s everyday life in the following areas (home life, friendships, classroom learning and leisure activities)?’). A family lifestyle questionnaire was developed to assess socioeconomic status and family environment. These factors were chosen according to multinational population epidemiological studies in a wide age range (Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991; Bourdon, Goodman, Rae, Simpson, & Koretz, 2005; Dunn, Deater-Deckard, Pickering, O’Connor, & Golding, 1998). The indicators of family type included intact family with both biological parents, step-parent or single-parent families. Sociodemographic indicators included the mothers’ and fathers’ education (1 = secondary school, 2 = college, 4 = university degree) and occupation (0 = unemployed, 1 = unskilled workers, 2 = technical workers, 3 = professional workers). On the basis of a previous study in a transitional society (Goodman et al., 2005), affluence was measured by items asking about the financial situation, living conditions, family possessions, travel and whether the child received pocket money (10 item, α = 0.72). Family cohesion was a 5-item scale (α = 0.72). One item asked to rate parent–child relationships on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘bad’ to ‘very good’. Four items from the General Functioning Scale of the MacMaster Family Assessment Device (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985) were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, e.g. ‘planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstand each other’ or ‘we confide in each other’. Family aggression was measured by an item asking whether the child has witnessed any quarrels between the adults in the family and, if so, did the quarrels involve physical aggression. Harsh parenting was measured by an item asking about methods of dealing with the
9: 44–57 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Moderators of problem behaviour in children
child’s bad behaviour (1 = talking the problems over, 2 = withdrawal of privileges or additional chores, 3 = shouting, 4 = hitting). Parental monitoring was measured by an item asking whether a parent tried to know about the children’s whereabouts. Responses were scored on a 3-point rating scale (1 = always try to know, 2 = as much as possible, 3 = do not consider necessary). Neighbourhood safety was measured by an item asking whether the informant considered her or his place of living ‘dangerous’ or ‘safe’ in terms of criminality, as rated on a 3-point scale. Data analysis We examined the interactions between personality and family factors in the prediction of problem behaviour in a series of hierarchical multiple regressions following guidelines by Baron and Kenny (1986). Outcomes were three Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scales, externalizing, internalizing and impact in everyday life. Predictors were entered hierarchically in the following order: (1) gender and age were consistently entered as control measures; (2) main effects of SP or SR and proposed moderator (family environment variable); and (3) two-way interactions involving SP or SR and family environment variable. In order to reduce the problem of multicollinearity, we standardized all continuous variables entered in interaction terms. Statistically significant interaction effects were then tested in separate models for two moderating variables; interactions with family type were also tested in univariate GLM with family type as a factor and reinforcement sensitivity as covariate. Categorical variables were transformed in dummy variables; we compared the coefficients of predictors to test possible different effects between groups using the difference in the coefficients between the reference group and the comparison group. To gain an understanding of the overall pattern of the interaction, regression slopes of continuous moderators were plotted for the three groups, scoring >1 SD,
