Nama : Riska Arini

Prodi : S1 Keperawatan 3B
NIM : III.11.3083

ANALISA JURNAL
1. Judul penelitian :
Gaya pola asuh sebagai Mediator Antara Emosionalitas Negatif Anak dan Perilaku
Bermasalah pada Anak Usia Dini.
2. Tujuan penelitian :
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apakah ada hubungan antara emosionalitas
negatif dan perilaku bermasalah anak (internalisasi dan eksternalisasi) yang sebagian
dimediasi oleh gaya pola asuh (otoritatif dan otoriter)
3. Metodologi penelitian
a. Variable penelitian :
Variabel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah:
1) Variabel independen (bebas)
Pada penelitian ini, variabel independennya adalah gaya pola asuh orangtua.
2) Variabel dependen (terikat)
Variabel dependen dalam penelitian ini adalah emosionalitas negatif dan perilaku
bermasalah anak usia dini.
b. Hipotesis :
Ha : Ada hubungan antara gaya pola asuh orangtua dengan emosionalitas negatif
dan perilaku bermasalah pada anak usia dini.
c. Rancangan penelitian
1) Jenis penelitian :
Penelitian ini adalah penelitian observasional/ survey yaitu penelitian yang
dilakukan tanpa melakukan intervensi terhadap subjek penelitian.
2) Pendekatan waktu :
Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan cross
sectional yaituh Variabel sebab (Independent Variable) dan variabel akibat
(dependent variable) yang terjadi pada obyek penelitian di ukur atau
dikumpulkan secara simultan atau dalam waktu bersamaan.
3) Pengumpulan data :
267 keluarga (36%) yang setuju untuk berpartisipasi dikirim satu set
kuesioner yang harus diselesaikan di rumah oleh orang tua yang paling

terlibat dalam perkembangan anak. Orang tua kemudian mengembalikan

kuesioner melalui pos. Kami menerima 201 (75%) set kuesioner. Karena
semua tapi 5 set kuesioner yang diisi oleh ibu-ibu, kami hanya melaporkan
data yang berkaitan dengan ibu (N = 196). Karena undang-undang privasi
Belanda, itu tidak mungkin untuk menyelidiki apakah bias nonresponse ada.
4) Populasi :
Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah 750 keluarga di provinsi North-Holland,
Belanda yang dipilih secara acak dan dihubungi melalui surat dari pusat
kesehatan anak untuk menanyakan apakah mereka akan berpartisipasi dalam
sebuah studi temperamen dan pengembangan.
5) Sampel dan teknik pengambilan :
Bekerja sama dengan pusat kesehatan anak Belanda di provinsi NorthHolland, merekrut 196 anak-anak usia prasekolah (98 perempuan, 98 lakilaki, umur M = 3,4 tahun, SD = 0,4 tahun) dan ibu mereka (usia M = 35,9
tahun, SD = 3,7 tahun) untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Di Belanda,
pusat kesehatan anak melayani masyarakat umum. Dari keluarga yang
berpartisipasi, 99% adalah keluarga dengan dua orang tua; ibu entah menikah
atau hidup dengan ayah dari anak tersebut. 92% dari ibu lahir di Belanda, dan
8% dari ibu lahir di tempat lain. 47% dari anak-anak sulung dan 53%
kemudian lahir.
Kami menghubungi 750 keluarga yang dipilih secara acak melalui surat dari
pusat kesehatan anak dan bertanya apakah mereka akan berpartisipasi dalam
sebuah studi temperamen dan pengembangan. Sebuah formulir pendaftaran
dan amplop perangko-bayar (untuk dikirim ke universitas) yang tertutup.
Peserta meyakinkan kerahasiaan dan bahwa mereka akan menerima laporan
singkat tentang hasil penelitian.
6) Instrumen penelitian :
Emosionalitas Negatif : Untuk mengukur tingkat emosionalitas negatif, ibu
menyelesaikan lima skala Kuesioner Perilaku Anak (Children's Behavior
Questionnaire) (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi,
Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).
Gaya pengasuhan : Kami berasal langkah-langkah komposit untuk gaya
pengasuhan otoritatif dan otoriter dari 6 skala yg ibu selesaikan.

Prilaku Bermasalah : Kami menilai perilaku bermasalah menggunakan

Checklist Perilaku Anak (CBCL, Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord,
Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL berisi 100 item masalah yang
mencetak gol pada 3-point skala Likert-type.
7) Analisa data :
Emosionalitas Negatif : Untuk mengukur tingkat emosionalitas negatif, ibu
menyelesaikan lima skala Kuesioner Perilaku Anak (Children's Behavior
Questionnaire) (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi,
Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).
1. Skala Anger-frustrasi (13 item) disebut gangguan tugas yang sedang
berlangsung atau pemblokiran gawang. Alpha Cronbach memperkirakan
konsistensi internal untuk skala ini adalah .83.
2. Skala Ketidaknyamanan (12 item, = 0,69) reaksi yang bersangkutan
untuk kualitas sensorik dari rangsangan, termasuk intensitas, tingkat, atau
kompleksitas cahaya, gerakan, suara, dan tekstur.
3. Skala Takut (12 item, = 0,71) termasuk kegelisahan, khawatir, atau
gugup, yang berhubungan dengan nyeri diantisipasi atau tekanan atau
situasi yang berpotensi mengancam.
4. Skala Kesedihan (12 item, = 0,68) bersangkutan paparan penderitaan,
kekecewaan, dan kehilangan objek dan karenanya menurunkan mood dan
energi.
5. Skala Soothability (13 item, = 0,81) bersangkutan laju pemulihan dari
tekanan puncak, kegembiraan, atau gairah umum.
Ibu menilai anak mereka pada skala Likert-type 7 poin mulai dari 1 (sangat
tidak benar anak Anda) sampai 7 (sangat benar anak Anda). Ibu juga memiliki
pilihan respon nonapplicable untuk digunakan saat anak tidak (belum) bisa
diamati dalam situasi yang dijelaskan. Kami menilai validitas konstruk
menggunakan analisis komponen utama, yang mengungkapkan solusi satudimensi dengan soothability memuat negatif, faktor loadings mulai 0,69-0,82,
dan perbedaan dijelaskan dari 58%. Konsistensi internal untuk mengukur
komposit emosionalitas negatif adalah = 0,82. Rata-rata untuk komposit
mengukur emosionalitas negatif adalah 3,32 (SD = 0,70, N = 196).

Gaya pengasuhan : Kami berasal langkah-langkah komposit untuk gaya

pengasuhan otoritatif dan otoriter dari enam skala yg ibu selesaikan.
1. Skala Responsiveness (8 item, = 0,92) disebut sejauh mana ibu
menganggap dirinya responsif terhadap kebutuhan dan sinyal anaknya. Itu
berasal dari barang-barang dari Nijmegen ParentingQuestionnaire (Gerris
et al, 1993;. Gerrits, Dekovic, Groenendaal, & Noom 1996).
2. Skala Konsistensi (8 item, = 0,70) disebut sejauh mana perilaku ibu
sudah bisa ditebak bagi anak dan diukur dengan item dari Parenting
Dimensi Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal, Dekovic, & Noom, 1996; Slater
& Power, 1987).
3. Skala Acceptance (12 item, = .62) mengacu pada sejauh mana anak
tinggal sampai dengan harapan fisik, intelektual, dan emosional ibu. Item
berasal dari Indeks Stres Parenting (diterjemahkan dan direvisi oleh
Brock, Vermulst, Gerris, & Abidin, 1992; Groenendaal, Gerrits, &
Rispens, 1996). Ibu menilai perilaku pola asuh mereka pada skala Likerttype 6 poin mulai dari 1 (sangat tidak setuju) sampai 6 (sangat setuju).
4. Skala Induksi (5 item, = 0,83) menunjukkan mendisiplinkan teknik,
seperti menunjukkan konsekuensi dari nakal ke anak dan penalaran
dengan anak.
5. Skala Daya pernyataan (5 item, = 0,79) menunjukkan teknik seperti
meninggikan suara seseorang, penggunaan hukuman fisik, menghilangkan
hak istimewa, atau memberikan anak sebuah tugas tambahan
mendisiplinkan.
6. Skala Cinta penarikan (5 item, = 0,81) disebut teknik seperti
menghukum anak mendisiplinkan dengan mengabaikan dia atau mengirim
anak pergi.
Induksi, daya pernyataan, dan cinta penarikan diukur dengan item dari
Parenting Dimensi Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal et al, 1996;. Slater &
Power, 1987). Ibu membaca lima sketsa situasi pola asuh dan 10 reaksi yang
mungkin. Selanjutnya, mereka menggunakan skala Likert-type 4 poin mulai
dari 1 (sangat tidak mungkin) sampai 4 (sangat mungkin) untuk menilai
seberapa besar kemungkinan mereka menganggap diri mereka untuk bereaksi
dengan cara ini.

Prilaku Bermasalah : Kami menilai perilaku bermasalah menggunakan

Checklist Perilaku Anak (CBCL, Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord,
Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL berisi 100 item masalah yang
mencetak gol pada 3-point skala Likert-type. Ibu menunjukkan apakah
deskripsi perilaku adalah 0 (sama sekali tidak benar), 1 (agak benar), atau 2
(sangat benar) anak mereka. Secara keseluruhan skor yang diperoleh untuk
sindrom broadband perilaku internalisasi (cemas-tertekan dan menarik diri,
26 item, = 0,88) dan externalizingbehavior (perilaku agresif dan destruktif,
25 item, = 0,74). Rata-rata untuk internalisasi behaviorwas 6.00 (SD = 4.25,
N = 196). Rata-rata untuk perilaku eksternalisasi adalah 11,44 (SD = 7,54, N
= 196).
SES. SES keluarga adalah kombinasi dari latar belakang pendidikan dan
kejuruan dari kedua orang tuanya seperti yang dilaporkan oleh ibu dan
dihitung atas dasar faktor loadings-contoh spesifik dan standar deviasi. Nilai
rata-rata berhubungan dengan strata sosial ekonomi: 3-9 adalah kelas bawah,
9-12 adalah kelas menengah, dan 12-16 adalah kelas atas (Bernstein &
Brandis, 1970). Analisis komponen utama menunjukkan solusi satu-dimensi
dengan faktor loadings mulai dari .71 (latar belakang kejuruan ibu) ke .82
(latar belakang pendidikan ibu) dan varians menjelaskan dari 63%.
Konsistensi internal dari skala adalah = 0,80. Rata-rata untuk SES adalah
12.13 (SD = 2.57, N = 196). Sampel terdiri terutama (90%) dari keluarga
kelas menengah dan atas.

Parenting Style as a Mediator Between

Children's Negative Emotionality and
Problematic Behavior in Early Childhood
Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Marja C; Stams, Geert Jan J M; Hermanns, Jo M A
; Peetsma, Thea T D;van den Wittenboer, Godfried L H. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology 169.3 (Sep 2008): 209-26.

Abstract (summary)
Negative emotionality is considered to be the core of the difficult temperament
concept (J. E. Bates, 1989; R. L. Shiner, 1998). In this correlational study, the
authors examined whether the relations between children's negative emotionality
and problematic behavior (internalizing and externalizing) were partially mediated
byparenting style (authoritative and authoritarian) in a community sample of 196 3year-old children and their mothers. The authors assessed maternal perception
of child negative emotionality using the Children'sBehavior Questionnaire (M. K.
Rothbart, S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, & P. Fisher, 2001) and assessed problematic
child behavior by means of maternal report using the Child Behavior Checklist (T. M.
Achenbach, 1992). The results showed that the relations between child negative
emotionality and internalizing and externalizing behaviors were partially mediated
by mothers' authoritative parenting style. Moreover, when the authors used
confirmatory factor analysis to decontaminate possible overlap in item content
between measures assessing temperament and problematic behavior, the
association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was fully
mediated by authoritative parenting. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full Text

Headnote
ABSTRACT. Negative emotionality is considered to be the core of the difficult
temperament concept (J. E. Bates, 1989; R. L. Shiner, 1998). In this correlational
study, the authors examined whether the relations betweenchildren's negative
emotionality and problematic behavior (internalizing and externalizing) were
partially mediated by parenting style (authoritative and authoritarian) in a
community sample of 196 3-year-oldchildren and their mothers. The authors
assessed maternal perception of child negative emotionality using
theChildren's Behavior Questionnaire (M. K. Rothbart, S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, & P.
Fisher, 2001) and assessed problematic child behavior by means of maternal report
using the Child Behavior Checklist (T. M. Achenbach, 1992). The results showed that
the relations between child negative emotionality and internalizing and
externalizing behaviors were partially mediated by mothers'
authoritative parenting style. Moreover, when the authors used confirmatory factor
analysis to decontaminate possible overlap in item content between measures
assessing temperament and problematic behavior, the association between
negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was fully mediated by
authoritative parenting.
Keywords: externalizing, internalizing, parenting, temperament
CHILDREN DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER beginning early in life, and these differences
may have implications for parent-child interactions. Some important differences
pertain to children's temperament (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). Although ideas about
temperament go back to ancient Greco-Roman times, Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig,
and Korn (1963) conducted the first major study of temperament in children. Their
New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) identified nine dimensions of temperament:
activity level, approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, threshold, intensity,
distractibility, rhythmicity, and attention-span persistence (Thomas et al., 1963).
They also developed a difficult temperament concept that included the negative
poles of the dimensions approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, intensity, and
rhythmicity. They concluded that difficult preschoolers in the NYLS were at increased
risk for later behavioral and emotional problems (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968).
This finding has spurred much research examining the association between
temperament characteristics and developmental outcomes.
Although researchers have debated the definition of temperament over the past
several decades, a consensus has emerged that the term refers to constitutionally
based differences in behavioral style that are visible from the child's earliest years
(Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004). Three broad aspects of temperament are
gaining wide acceptance: negative emotionality, self-regulation, and a dimension
variously labeled as approach-withdrawal, inhibition, or sociability (Sanson et al.,
2004). Negative emotionality can be considered the core of the difficult
temperament concept (Bates, 1989; Lee & Bates, 1985; Prior, 1992; Shiner, 1998).

A widely accepted definition of negative emotionality is the child's tendency to react

to stressors with high degrees of emotionality, including anger, irritability, fear, or
sadness (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994).
Temperament is considered more a function of the biological makeup of
the child and less a product of the child's interaction with caregivers (Zeanah & Fox,
2004). Researchers support the view of temperament as innate or biological and
have found the genetic component of temperament to be fairly large. For example,
Bokhorst et al. (2003) compared temperament in monozygotic and dizygotic twins
and calculated that 77% of the variance in temperamental reactivity could be
explained by genetic factors. Accordingly, temperament also has been shown to be
moderately stable over time, with correlations ranging from .2 to .4, although
stability may be higher (.7 < r < .8) if measurement error is taken into account
(Sanson et al., 2004).
Temperament is generally measured using parent questionnaires because
researchers tend to be primarily interested in parental perceptions of temperament.
Although some researchers have questioned the validity of parent report as an
objective measure of child temperament (Mangelsdorf, Schoppe, & Buur, 2000),
other researchers have argued that there is a strong objective component in parent
ratings of child temperament (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). This last claim is supported
by empirical studies showing convergence between parent ratings and
observational assessments of temperament (e.g., Kochanska, 1995; Pauli-Pott,
Mertesacker, Bade, Bauer, & Beckmann, 2000; Schuler, Black, & Starr, 1995).
Temperament and Problematic Behavior
In the decades following the NYLS, empirical evidence has accumulated showing
that difficult temperament in early childhood is both concurrently and prospectively
related to internalizing behavior, such as anxiety, sadness, social withdrawal, and
fearfulness, and externalizing behavior, such as overactivity, poor impulse control,
noncompliance, aggression toward peers, and tantrums (Rothbart & Bates, 1998;
Sanson et al., 2004). Most researchers focus on externalizing behavior, presumably
because pure internalizing symptoms are difficult to identify and thus harder to
study in young children (Campbell, 1995). When measured at the preschool age,
however, externalizing and internalizing behaviors are substantially correlated in
clinical and nonclinical samples (Campbell; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gjone &
Stevenson, 1997). This co-occurrence is not well understood. Although shared risk
factors, genetic influences, and risk factors that stem from the development of an
initial disorder constitute some of the proposed explanatory factors, few researchers
to date have explored this phenomenon (Oland & Shaw, 2005). Regarding gender,
Campbell concluded that the bulk of evidence suggests that gender differences in
internalizing and externalizing behaviors are not marked in preschool-aged children.
Although school-aged boys have a higher incidence of externalizing behavior, by

early adolescence, girls shift toward more internalizing behavior (Achenbach,

Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991).
Like temperament assessment, assessment of problematic behavior in preschoolaged children often involves adult-rated questionnaires (mostly by parents,
sometimes combined with preschool or daycare teachers). The validity of parent
report of problematic behavior has been demonstrated in several studies (Campbell,
1995). According to Campbell, preschool-aged children whom parents or teachers
rate higher on externalizingbehaviors are also more difficult to handle when they
are observed interacting with teachers, parents, and peers in structured and
unstructured situations.
Parenting Behavior
Researchers have consistently described parenting behavior along two dimensions:
support and control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Support can
be designated as parental behavior that makes the child feel comfortable in the
relationship with his or her parent, fostering an internal representation in
the child that he or she is basically accepted (Rollins & Thomas).
Supportive parenting relates to constructs such as warmth, sensitivity,
responsiveness, and acceptance and is considered essential for the formation of
secure attachments and other positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Coplan,
Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, & Moulton, 2002; van IJzendoorn & BakermansKranenburg, 2004), whereas lack of support may contribute to
problematic behavior (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). The second dimension, control, is
"behavior of the parent toward the child with the intent of directing the behavior of
the child in a manner desirable to the parents" (Rollins & Thomas, p. 321). Control
strategies may vary from positive to negative, depending on the parent and the
situation. One negative strategy, restrictive control, is characterized by high power
assertion, negativity, intrusiveness, hostility, overcontrol, or overinvolvement. More
restrictive control has been associated with increased
externalizing behavior (Calkins, 2002; Campbell, 1995).
Maccoby and Martin (1983) proposed a fourfold scheme in which combinations of
support (high and low) and control (high and low) describe four parenting styles:
authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting. The most
common parenting styles in this fourfold scheme are authoritative and
authoritarian parenting. Authoritative parenting is characterized by a combination of
high warmth, firm but fair control, and the use of explanations and reasoning
(Campbell, 1995). Authoritarian parenting involves power assertion without warmth,
nurturance, or two-way communication. Authoritative parenting is generally
advantageous to childdevelopment (Coplan et al., 2002; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). In
addition, this method also captures the sense of mutuality that may be particularly
important for parenting children who have high levels of negative emotionality
(Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). In contrast, authoritarian maternal parenting that is

arbitrary, negative, or uninvolved is associated with noncompliance, defiance, and

low internalization of control (Campbell). Fathers generally report less
authoritative parenting than do mothers (e.g., Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005).
An explanation for this finding may be that mothers are generally more emotionally
invested inparenting, face relatively strong societal expectations about parenting,
and, as a rule, have the most responsibility for parenting (Corwyn & Bradley, 1999;
Geary, 2000).
Parenting style is more authoritative and child-centered in families of higher
socioeconomic status (SES), in contrast to the authoritarian parent-centered style
that characterizes lower SES families (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002).
Furthermore, children showing problematic behavior at preschool age are more
likely to come from families of lower SES (Campbell, 1995). These findings may be
explained by the more stressful family circumstances in lower SES families, such as
financial problems, housing problems, and difficulty in accessingchild welfare,
medical facilities, or other social services that can be used as a source of support.
Mediation by Parenting
In the majority of studies, researchers report small to moderate associations
between children's negative emotionality and problematic behavior (Sanson,
Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991). In addition, most researchers only focus on direct
effects. What appear to be direct effects, however, could also result from more
complex and indirect relations, such as mediation processes. Mediation
by parenting may be a plausible indirect pathway connecting temperament with
problematic behavior (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000;
Lee & Bates, 1985; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Mediation by parenting implies that
the child's negative emotionality affects parenting and that parenting subsequently
affects the child'sbehavior. Several researchers already have investigated these
separate paths. Empirical evidence has shown that higher levels of child negative
emotionality are associated with (a) more authoritarian parenting behaviors, such
as power assertion, low emotional support, punitiveness, and general
unresponsiveness, and (b) less authoritative parenting (e.g., Sanson et al., 2004).
Therefore, these authoritarian parenting behaviorsare related to more
externalizing behavior (Paterson & Sanson, 1999; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Rubin,
Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003) and internalizing behavior (Morris et al., 2002).
Present Study
In the present study, we attempted to provide more insight into the mechanism that
relates preschoolers' negative emotionality to their problematic internalizing and
externalizing behaviors, as measured by maternal perceptions. We examined direct
and indirect associations in this community sample. We focused on 3-year-olds to fill
a gap in the existing literature. Based on our proposed mediation model (see Figure
1), we expected to find (a) direct associations between child negative emotionality

and both internalizing and externalizingbehaviors, (b) direct associations among

higher levels of negative emotionality, less authoritative parenting, and more
authoritarian parenting, (c) direct associations between less authoritative and more
authoritarianparenting and higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior,
(d) indirect, mediated paths from negative emotionality through parenting styles to
more problematic behavior, (e) associations between lower levels of SES and higher
and lower levels of authoritative parenting, and (f) associations between lower
levels of SES and higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Because
we considered parenting style to be only one of the processes linking temperament
with problematic behavior, we hypothesized partial mediation, which indicates that
the effects of negative emotionality on internalizing and
externalizingbehaviors remain significant in a model that accounts for mediation
by parenting.
We note that confounding of measures due to item-content overlap in the
assessment of temperament and problematic behavior may invalidate conclusions
about the relation between negative emotionality and both internalizing and
externalizing behaviors. However, Lemery, Essex, and Smider (2002) and Lengua,
West, and Sandler (1998) showed that even after the removal of contaminated
questionnaire items, there continued to be significant and interpretable relations
between temperament and problematic behavior. In this study, we accounted for
possible contamination of the measures for negative emotionality and
problematic behavior by repeating the analyses of our final model using the
decontaminated measures derived from a confirmatory factor analysis.
Method
Participants
In collaboration with Dutch child health centers in the province North- Holland, we
recruited 196 preschool-aged children (98 girls, 98 boys; M age = 3.4 years, SD =
0.4 years) and their mothers (M age = 35.9 years, SD = 3.7 years) to participate in
this study. In The Netherlands, child health centers serve the general population. Of
the participating families, 99% were two-parent families; mothers were either
married to or living with the father of the child. Ninety-two percent of the mothers
were born in The Netherlands, and 8% of the mothers were born elsewhere. Fortyseven percent of the children were firstborn and 53% were later born.
Procedure
We contacted 750 randomly selected families through a letter from the child health
centers and asked if they would participate in a study of temperament and
development. A registration form and a postage-paid envelope (to be sent to the
university) were enclosed. Participants were assured confidentiality and that they
would receive a brief report about the results of the study. The 267 families (36%)
who agreed to participate were sent a set of questionnaires to be completed at

home by the parent who was most involved in raising thechild. The parents returned
the questionnaires by mail. We received 201 (75%) sets of completed
questionnaires. Because all but 5 of the sets of questionnaires were completed by
mothers, we report only data with regard to mothers (N = 196). Due to Dutch
privacy legislation, it was not possible to investigate whether a nonresponse bias
existed.
Measures
Negative emotionality. For the composite measure of negative emotionality,
mothers completed five scales of the Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ;
Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).
1. Anger-frustration scale (13 items) referred to interruption of ongoing tasks or goal
blocking. Cronbach's alpha estimating internal consistency for this scale was .83.
2. Discomfort scale (12 items, = .69) concerned reactions to sensory qualities of
stimulation, including intensity, rate, or complexities of light, movement, sound, and
texture.
3. Fear scale (12 items, = .71) included unease, worry, or nervousness, which are
related to anticipated pain or distress or potentially threatening situations.
4. Sadness scale (12 items, = .68) concerned exposure to suffering,
disappointment, and object loss and hence lowered mood and energy.
5. Soothability scale (13 items, = .81) concerned the rate of recovery from peak
distress, excitement, or general arousal.
Mothers rated their child on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely
untrue of your child) to 7 (extremely true of your child). Mothers also had a
nonapplicable response option to be used when the childhad not (yet) been
observed in the situation described. We assessed construct validity using principal
component analysis, which revealed a one-dimensional solution with soothability
loading negatively, factor loadings ranging from .69 to .82, and an explained
variance of 58%. Internal consistency for the composite negative emotionality
measure was = .82. The mean score for the composite negative emotionality
measure was 3.32 (SD = 0.70, N = 196).
Parenting styles. We derived the composite measures for authoritative and
authoritarian parenting styles from six scales that the mother completed.
1. Responsiveness scale (8 items, = .92) referred to the extent to which the
mother considered herself responsive to the needs and signals of her child. It was
derived from items from the Nijmegen ParentingQuestionnaire (Gerris et al., 1993;
Gerrits, Dekovic, Groenendaal, & Noom 1996).

2. Consistency scale (8 items, = .70) referred to the extent to which the

mother's behavior was predictable for the child and was measured by items from
the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal, Dekovic, & Noom, 1996;
Slater & Power, 1987).
3. Acceptance scale (12 items, = .62) referred to the extent to which
the child lived up to the mother's physical, intellectual, and emotional expectations.
The items came from the Parenting Stress Index (translated and revised by Brock,
Vermulst, Gerris, & Abidin, 1992; Groenendaal, Gerrits, & Rispens, 1996). Mothers
rated their parenting behavior on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
4. Induction scale (5 items, = .83) indicated disciplining techniques, such as
pointing out consequences of misbehaving to the child and reasoning with the child.
5. Power assertion scale (5 items, = .79) indicated disciplining techniques such as
raising one's voice, the use of physical punishment, taking away privileges, or
giving the child an extra chore.
6. Love withdrawal scale (5 items, = .81) referred to disciplining techniques such
as punishing the child by ignoring him or her or sending the child away.
Induction, power assertion, and love withdrawal were measured by items from
the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal et al., 1996; Slater &
Power, 1987). Mothers read five vignettes describingparenting situations and 10
possible reactions. Subsequently, they used a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (very improbable) to 4 (very probable) to rate how likely they considered
themselves to react in these ways.
Principal component analysis revealed a two-dimensional solution with 29% of the
variance explained by a factor dealing with authoritative parenting and 28% of the
variance explained by a factor that could be labeled authoritarian parenting. Scales
loading on authoritative parenting were Responsiveness (factor loading = .59),
Acceptance (.71), Induction (.52), and Consistency (.74). Scales loading on
authoritarian parenting were Power assertion (.88) and Love withdrawal (.87). We
standardized the six separate scale scores before computing composite scores.
Internal consistency for the composite authoritative parenting measure was = .83.
Internal consistency for the composite authoritarian parenting measure was = .
76.
Problematic behavior. We assessed problematic behavior using the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord, Verhulst, &
Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL contains 100 problem items that are scored on 3-point
Likert-type scales. Mothers indicated whether behavioral descriptions were 0 (not at
all true), 1 (somewhat true), or 2 (very true) of their child. Overall scores were
obtained for the broadband syndromes of internalizing behavior (anxious-depressed

and withdrawn; 26 items, = .88) and externalizingbehavior (aggressive and

destructive behavior; 25 items, = .74). The mean score for
internalizing behaviorwas 6.00 (SD = 4.25, N = 196). The mean score for
externalizing behavior was 11.44 (SD = 7.54, N = 196).
SES. SES of the family was a combination of the educational and vocational
backgrounds of both parents as reported by the mother and was computed on the
basis of sample-specific factor loadings and standard deviations. Mean scores
corresponded to socioeconomic strata: 3-9 was lower class, 9-12 was middle class,
and 12-16 was upper class (Bernstein & Brandis, 1970). Principal component
analysis revealed a one-dimensional solution with factor loadings ranging from .71
(vocational background of mother) to .82 (educational background of mother) and
an explained variance of 63%. Internal consistency of the scale was = .80. The
mean score for SES was 12.13 (SD = 2.57, N = 196). The sample consisted primarily
(90%) of middle- and upper-class families.
Results
Correlations and covariances for the study variables are presented in Table 1. In
preliminary analyses, we examined gender and birth-order differences with respect
to the composites of negative emotionality, authoritative and
authoritarian parenting styles, and internalizing and externalizing behaviors. There
were no significant gender or birth-order differences in mean scores on any of the
variables. We analyzed data on the sample covariance matrix estimates using
maximum-likelihood estimation. We used AMOS, version 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke,
1999). We performed tests of indirect, mediated effects using bootstrap procedures.
Bootstrapping results in enhanced statistical power for testing mediational models
when sample sizes are moderate or small (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Overall model fit
was assessed using chi-square, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and
Steiger's root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The AGFI is a measure
of the relative amount of variance and covariance that are jointly accounted for by
the model. It ranges from 0 to 1, and values close to 1 indicate a good fit (Jreskorg
& Srbom, 1989). The RMSEA is a population-based index and is relatively
insensitive to sample size (Loehlin, 1998). According to Loehlin, an RMSEA of .05 or
less would indicate a close fit of the model.
We started with the full theoretical model (see Figure 1), which we found fit the data
well, ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) = 1.91, p = .38; AGFI = .97; RMSEA = .00. However, the
direct paths from SES to authoritative parenting, negative emotionality to
authoritarian parenting, and authoritarian parenting to both internalizing and
externalizing behavior were not significant. Omitting these paths from the model for
parsimony left authoritarian parenting disconnected from both predictor (negative
emotionality) and outcome variables (problematic behavior). Therefore, we removed
authoritarian parenting from the model.

The adjusted model (see Figure 2) still fit the data well, ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) =
2.49, p = .29; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. All direct paths in this model were
significant, so no further adjustments were made. Children's negative emotionality
was positively associated with children's externalizing behavior ( = .44, p = .002)
and internalizing behavior ( = .39, p = .002). We found a negative association
between children's negative emotionality and maternal authoritative parenting style
( = -.40, p = .002). Maternal authoritative parentingstyle was also negatively
associated with children's externalizing behavior ( = -.17, p = .015), as was the
association between maternal authoritative parenting style and children's
internalizing behavior ( = -.17, p = .008). Family SES was negatively associated
with both children's internalizing ( = -.19, p = .007) and externalizing behaviors (
= -.18, p = .002). However, SES was not associated with maternal
authoritativeparenting style. Children's externalizing and
internalizing behaviors were moderately correlated (r = .46, p = .002). With regard
to the hypothesized indirect effects, the association between children's negative
emotionality and externalizing behavior was partially mediated by maternal
authoritative parenting style ( = .07, p < .05), and the association
between children's negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was also
partially mediated by maternal authoritative parenting style ( = .07, p < .01). The
model accounted for 26% of the variance in internalizing behavior and 32% of the
variance in externalizing behavior.
In additional analyses, we tested the final mediation model after decontamination of
the CBQ and CBCL items through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; see Lengua et
al., 1998). CFA of the CBQ and CBCL yielded three meaningful constructs (negative
emotionality, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior) with satisfactory
internal consistencies (.68 < < .85). Item-content overlap proved to be most
prominent in the scale for internalizing behavior. The CFA model showed an
acceptable fit to the data, ^sup 2^(1376, N = 196) = 2611.31, p < .00; AGFI = .
66; RMSEA = .07: The ratio between the chi-square statistic and the degrees of
freedom was lower than 2.5 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Subsequently, we tested the final
mediation model using the decontaminated CBQ and CBCL. The decontaminated
mediation model still showed an adequate fit to the data, ^sup 2^(3, N = 196) =
4.14, p = .25; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. The direct association between negative
emotionality and externalizing behavior was less strong in the decontaminated
model but still significant. The direct association between negative emotionality and
internalizing behavior, however, was reduced to nonsignificance. The mediated
effects that we found in the adjusted model were also present in the
decontaminated model and were of similar size. However, the finding that the direct
association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was reduced
to nonsignificance indicates that this association was then fully mediated by
authoritative parenting instead of partially mediated.
Discussion

Our aim in the present study was to investigate parenting as a possible mechanism
linking children's negative emotional reaction style to their problematic behavior in
families drawn from the general population. In line with earlier findings, the results
of this study show a relation between child negative emotionality and
problematic behavior. More important, though, is the finding that this relation was
mediated by mother's authoritative parenting style. As relations between
temperament and problematic behavior may be inflated because of item-content
overlap, we used CFA as a means of decontamination. The decontaminated model
differed from the previous best-fitting model in that the direct relation between
negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was reduced to nonsignificance,
indicating that the association between negative emotionality and
internalizing behavior was fully mediated by authoritative parenting. It seems that
decontamination of measures assessing negative emotionality and
problematic behavior yields a clearer picture of the mediation process. Moreover,
our findings match those of Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios (1990), who found a significant
amount of overlap between temperament and internalizing behavior, indicating that
parents may infer their child's internalizing behavior partly from perceptions of
their child's temperament.
Theoretical Relevance
The coefficients of the mediated paths were small but of theoretical interest
because this study demonstrates that parenting can mediate the relation
between children's difficult temperament and problematic behavior. Furthermore,
with authoritarian parenting style's not being a mediator, our results suggest that
authoritativeparenting may be more important for the behavioral adjustment of
preschoolers than is authoritarianparenting. This is in line with findings by Pettit and
Bates (1989) and Rothbaum and Weisz (1994), who have suggested that, despite
both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles being high on the control
dimension, parental control should be exercised in a sensitive way to be effective. In
this way, it appears that love withdrawal and power assertion are aspects of control
that do not contribute to the prevention of problematic behavior. Coplan et al.
(2002) suggested that an authoritarian parenting style functions as a lens through
which all children's behaviors are perceived and evaluated. The researchers found
the default emotional response of authoritarian mothers to be negative, regardless
of child behavior. It is possible that a parent-centered parenting style also generates
a default behavioral response and consequently does not show any variation in
negative parenting behavior when compared with varying degrees of negative
emotionality.
Our findings agree with those of studies showing associations between internalizing
and externalizingbehaviors at the preschool age (Campbell, 1995; Gilliom & Shaw,
2004; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). The moderate relation between internalizing and
externalizing behaviors may partly be accounted for by a process of multifinality,
namely, a similar initial condition (difficult temperament) that leads to different

effects (internalizing and externalizing behavior; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). We

found empirical evidence for a link between negative emotionality and both
internalizing and externalizing behaviors. It is interesting that the relation between
negative emotionality and externalizing behavior proved to be partially mediated
byparenting, whereas the relation between negative emotionality and
internalizing behavior was fully mediated by parenting in the model that was not
affected by item-content overlap in measures of temperament and
problematic behavior.
Last, as hypothesized, family SES proved to be modestly related to
problematic behavior. The relations between SES and authoritative and
authoritarian parenting styles were in the expected direction, though not significant,
indicating that parenting did not act as a mediator here. Stronger relations may be
found in more heterogeneous samples.
Practical Relevance
The finding that an authoritative parenting style mediates the relations between
negative emotionality and problematic behaviors underscores the importance of
providing effective parenting support to parents who have difficulties in dealing with
their young child's negative emotionality on a daily basis. When parents can be
trained and encouraged to react to their children's negative emotionality in an
adaptive way, parent-childinteractions may become more enjoyable, thereby
reducing the occurrence of problematic behaviors and preventing more serious
behavioral problems later in life (Campbell, 1995; Patterson, 1982). We note that
even in general population samples, a substantial percentage of children (up to
10%) may develop internalizing- and externalizing-behavior problems in the clinical
range (Achenbach et al., 1991; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1996). The present
study adds to the body of literature showing how normal development may go awry.
Limitations
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. The first is the correlational
nature of the design, which sets limits on the causal interpretation of our results.
Second, it is possible that the mediations we found may be accounted for by genetic
similarities between parent and child. However, researchers focusing on individual
differences in internalizing and externalizing behaviors have shown that both genes
and environment play a role and that shared environmental factors,
especially parenting, can be considered important for the stability of internalizing
and externalizing behavior from preschool to middle childhood and early
adolescence (Bartels, 2004; Stams, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2002; van der Valk, van
den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 2003). A third limitation of the study is its limited
generalizability because the participants predominantly came from middle to high
socioeconomic backgrounds. Notably, a recent meta-analysis of negative
emotionality and parentingshowed the association between more child negative

emotionality and less supportive parenting to be stronger in lower SES families than
in families from middle or higher socioeconomic backgrounds (PaulussenHoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007). Last, the present findings may
be generalized only to mothers and not to fathers. For example, researchers
investigating the ecology of fathering have shown that fathers and mothers differ in
both caregiving sensitivity and play interaction, which may have different
developmental consequences for the child (Grossmann et al., 2002; Lamb, Frodi,
Frodi, & Hwang, 1982; Parke, 1995).
Suggestions for Additional Research
Despite the increasing involvement of fathers in child rearing in many Western
countries, researchers in this field still tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
However, a more complete examination of the associations among negative
emotionality, parenting style, and problematic behavior would require a greater
number of studies that include data from fathers. Thus, although fathers are
generally less willing to participate in research than are mothers, it is essential that
researchers make every effort to get and keep fathers involved. In addition to
including fathers, we also recommend that future researchers use longitudinal
designs to test the proposed mediational model in the most robust way.
In sum, this study revealed that difficult temperament in preschoolers,
characterized by expressions of negative emotionality, was related to both
externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Moreover, we found initial evidence that
an authoritative parenting style mediates the relation between children's difficult
temperament and problematic behavior. Although replication of our results is
needed, this study adds to a greater understanding of the processes that are
responsible for the progression of difficult temperament into problematic behavior.

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, C. T., & Conners, C. K. (1991). National survey
of problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-year-olds: Parents' reports
from normative and clinical samples. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 56(3, Serial No. 225).
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Bartels, M. (2004). De oorzaken van individuele verschillen in stabiliteit en
verandering van gedragsproblemen [Causes of individual differences in stability and
change of behavior problems]. Neuropraxis, 8, 107-115.
Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm &
J. E. Bates (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 3-26). New York: Wiley.
Bernstein, B., & Brandis, W. (1970). Social class differences in communication and
control. In W. Brandis & D. Henderson (Eds.), Social class, language and
communication (pp. 93-153). London: Routledge.
Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., van IJzendoorn,
M. H., Fonagy, P., & Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in
mother-infant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development,
74, 1769-1782.
Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R. R. (1992). Nijmeegse
ouderlijke stress index: Handleiding experimentele versie
[Nijmegen Parenting Stress Index: Manual experimental version]. Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Calkins, S. D. (2002). Does aversive behavior during toddlerhood matter?: The
effects of difficult temperament on maternal perceptions and behavior. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 23, 381-402.
Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent
research. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 113149.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental
psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597-600.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H.
(2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture.
American Psychologist, 55, 218-232.
Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002).
Authoritative and authoritarian mothers' parenting goals, attributions and emotions
across different childrearing contexts. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 1-26.
Submitted January 12, 2006

Accepted February 4, 2008

AuthorAffiliation
MARJA C. PAULUSSEN-HOOGEBOOM
GEERT JAN J. M. STAMS
JO M. A. HERMANNS
THEA T. D. PEETSMA
GODFRIED L. H. VAN DEN WITTENBOER
University of Amsterdam
Address correspondence to Marja C. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Department of
Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, PO
Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands; m.c.paulussenhoogeboom@uva.nl (e-mail).
AuthorAffiliation
AUTHOR NOTES
Marja C. Paulussen-Hoogeboom is a developmental psychologist. Her research
interests are in temperament, specifically negative emotionality, parenting,
and behavior problems in young children. Geert Jan J. M. Stams has conducted
longitudinal research, intervention studies, and several meta-analyses in the areas
of socioemotional and moral development, focusing on familial and extrafamilial
determinants of behaviorproblems in early childhood, middle childhood, and
adolescence. Jo M. A. Hermanns is a developmental psychologist. His research
interests are family support, parenting, and developmental risks. Thea T. D. Peetsma
is senior researcher at the SCO-Kohnstamm Institute at the University of
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and coordinator of the division for basic research of
this institute. She specializes in psychosocial development, learning motivation
of children, and children with special educational needs. Godfried L. H. van den
Wittenboer has researched the methodological issues of educational and
psychological measurement, varying from problems in facet theory, such as
reducing complex research designs, response scalability, the structure of
measurement in facet designs and interaction problems in simple research designs,
to issues in longitudinal data analysis.
Word count: 7178
Copyright Heldref Publications Sep 2008