Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

The relations among child negative interactive behavior,child temperament, and maternal behavior

Nora Szabo a,∗, Maja Dekovic a, Chantal van Aken a, Marjolein Verhoeven b,Marcel A.G. van Aken a, Marianne Junger a

a Utrecht University, The Netherlandsb University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 8 August 2006; received in revised form 23 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2008

Abstract

Negative behavior toward the mother during toddlerhood might be a marker of increased risk for maladjustment. The aim of thepresent study was to examine the possible antecedents of toddler boys’ negative behavior observed in interaction with the mother:child temperament, and maternal behavior toward the child. We studied the moderating and mediating role of two dimensions ofmaternal behavior, sensitivity and intrusiveness, in the relationship between children’s temperamental traits (frustration, soothabilityand activity level), on the one hand, and child negative behavior, on the other hand. The sample consisted of 112 mother–son dyadsobserved when the child was 17 months old. A temperament questionnaire was completed by the mothers. Child negative interactivebehavior, maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness were observed at home during a 13-min play session. Maternal sensitivity wasnegatively related to child negative interactive behavior regardless of child temperament. Maternal intrusiveness, however, moderatedthe relation between activity level and negative behavior, i.e., children with high activity level showed higher levels of negativebehavior especially when the mother was highly intrusive. Furthermore, maternal intrusiveness acted as a mediator in the relationbetween soothability and negative behavior, i.e., low soothability was linked to higher maternal intrusiveness, which in turn wasassociated with higher negative behavior.© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Child negative interactive behavior; Frustration; Soothability; Activity level; Maternal sensitivity; Maternal intrusiveness

Parents often report problematic behavior in their children during toddlerhood (Prior, Smart, Sanson, Pedlow, &Oberklaid, 1992). Most often they complain about aggression, noncompliance, hyperactivity, shyness, and problemsrelated to daily routines especially mealtimes and bedtime (Mouton-Simien, McCain, & Kelley, 1997). Some childrensimply outgrow their problem behavior, but as many as 50% of the problematic group exhibit disturbances in kinder-garten and primary school (Campbell, Ewing, Breaux, & Szumowski, 1986). Thus, there is a strong need for researchaimed toward detecting early markers of deviant development.

In the present study, we investigated child negative behavior – anger and hostility shown toward mother duringinteraction – as a possible early sign of child maladjustment. During toddlerhood, children’s interaction with theprimary caregiver, mostly the mother, constitutes the largest part of a child’s social world and forms a context in which

∗ Corresponding author at: Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 30 253 19 71;fax: +31 30 253 47 18.

E-mail address: N.Szabo@uu.nl (N. Szabo).

0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.004

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 367

problems become visible for the first time. Problematic interactions, indicated by a high level of child negative behaviormight signal difficulties in child’s affect-regulation and/or in the development of the mother–child relationship. Affect-regulation has often been conceptualized as a construct that involves behaviors and strategies enabling children tomodulate their arousal and emotional states. This ability is not only important for social development, but it also hasan impact on learning processes. Dysregulated arousal and affect make it difficult for children to gather information,interact, and learn from their environment (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). The first three years of life are important in thedevelopment of affect-regulation (Calkins, 1994). Although most children go through this stage smoothly, some mightshow short episodes of disruptive behavior and, for a small group of children, these problems do not disappear butinstead escalate into negative exchanges with the caregiver, that are seen as possible antecedents of later behaviorproblems (Campbell, 2002). The NICHD Early Childcare Research Network (2004) suggests if children are not able toregulate their negative emotions in the context of the mother–child relationship, they have a chance to show the sameproblem across multiple contexts.

The importance of child negative behavior in interaction with the mother as an early sign of maladjustment is alsostressed in attachment theory. According to attachment theory, children who are growing up in a loving environmentwhere their needs are satisfied by their parents show high compliance and are willing to internalize and follow parentalvalues and expectations (Kochanska, 1995). Therefore these children should be better able to manage their emotionsthan children with a compromised caregiver–child relationship, who are expected to show more defiant and negativebehavior (NICHD ECCRN, 2004). Child negative behavior shown toward the mother is one of the cornerstones ofattachment classification. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) showed that negative behavior characterizesanxious-resistant infants during the reunion episodes of the Strange Situation. Outside the Strange Situation, negativebehavior toward the caregiver was shown by anxious-avoidant infants as well (Pederson & Moran, 1996). van Bakeland Riksen-Walraven (2002) found that disorganized infants – who are prone to develop psychopathology – showedsignificantly higher levels of negative behavior toward the parent than secure ones.

The above-mentioned studies show that negative behavior toward the mother as early as infancy and toddler-hood might be a marker of increased risk for maladjustment, suggesting that this topic deserves more attention fromresearchers. The aim of the present study was to examine potential antecedents of boys’ negative behavior observed ininteraction with the mother. In line with the latest research trends of developmental psychopathology (Bates, Dodge,Pettit, & Ridge, 1998; Morris et al., 2002), we hypothesized that child negative behavior might be the result of bothchild characteristics (e.g., temperament) and that of environmental factors (e.g., parenting). Thus, the overall aim of thepresent research was to examine toddlers’ negative interactive behavior toward the mother in relation to temperament(i.e., frustration, soothability, and activity level) and maternal behavior (i.e., sensitivity and intrusiveness).

Even though there are different definitions and operationalizations of temperament, most researchers consider it to bea biological predisposition that is stable across time and generalizable across situations (Goldsmith et al., 1987). In earlystudies, children were categorized as either ‘difficult’ or ‘easy,’ based on the clustering of temperamental characteristics.Difficult children were characterized by negative mood, lack of adaptability, high activity level, and low inhibitorycontrol (Bates, 1980; Thomas & Chess, 1977). This cluster of traits was found to be related to later problem behavior(Frankel & Bates, 1990). However, due to the wide variability of operationalizations, it is often not easy to identifywhat is meant by “difficult temperament” in any given study. Furthermore, the term “difficult temperament” provideslittle specific information concerning which temperamental traits might affect behavior and why. To avoid losing suchinformation, the present study focused on three specific temperamental traits: frustration, soothability, and activitylevel. Frustration (often called as anger) indicates negative affect, including unease, worry, or nervousness related toanticipated pain or distress and/or potentially threatening situations. Frustration is assumed to tap the function of theapproach system and tends to predict externalizing problems. Indeed, researchers have found that children classifiedas externalizing are relatively high on adult-rated frustration (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Soothability refers to the rate ofrecovery from peak distress, excitement, or general arousal. Former research has shown that children with low levelsof soothability are not capable of coordinating interactions with their caregiver due to their unregulated emotions(Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Furthermore, this temperamental trait loads negatively on the broader‘negative emotionality’ dimension, which has been shown to be related to both externalizing and internalizing problems(Shaw, Owens, Giovannelli, & Winslow, 2001). Activity level indicates limb, trunk or locomotor movement during avariety of daily situations, including free play, confinement, or quiet activities (Goldsmith, 1996). In a developmentalstage with the onset of autonomous locomotion, activity level might be an important factor affecting mother–childrelationships. An early study by Buss (1981) found that parents of less-active children provide more support and

368 N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

encouragement. These findings were recently supported by Huang, Teti, Caughy, Feldstein, and Genevro (2007), whofound that toddlers’ high activity level is associated with a higher rate of conflict and less maternal use of constructiveresponses. Activity level is widely accepted as a dimension of temperament (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Deviations inactivity level are often described as an important component of different forms of psychopathology (Gandour, 1989;Schaugency & Fagot, 1993) and it appears to be a predictor of externalizing behavior and delinquency in several studies(Hagekull, 1994; Windle, 1992).

Even though many children can be often frustrated, difficult-to-soothe or highly active, not all of them are likelyto show negative behaviors in interactions with their mother. The difference in outcomes might be explained by theenvironment of the child. For example, the family environment and specifically parenting may have a major influence.Studies examining the relation between parenting and child adjustment have focused on two primary dimensions ofparenting: parental responsiveness and control (Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000). Parental control involves disciplineand monitoring, high expectations and restrictions of the child’s behavior. In toddlerhood, due to children’s increasedmobility and physical strength, a significantly higher level of parental control can be observed as parents begin toenforce the standards of behavior and children are expected to comply with these demands. Parental responsiveness isanother critical quality of early parenting which has an important status in attachment research. Parental responsivenessindicates sensitivity, appropriate response, and respect for child autonomy, warmth, and acceptance (de Wolff & vanIJzendoorn, 1997). In the present study, these two dimensions were specified as maternal sensitivity, an aspect ofparental responsiveness, and intrusiveness, a negative aspect of maternal control.

Sensitivity is defined as the mother’s ability to recognize her infant’s signals, to interpret them accurately, and torespond to them appropriately (Kivijarvi et al., 2001). The importance of maternal sensitivity in the first years of lifehas been demonstrated in several studies (Beckwith, Rodning, & Cohen, 1992; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1990;Dallaire & Weinraub, 2005; Fagot & Gauvain, 1997). Prior research has found that infants of sensitive mothers developtrust and secure attachment (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974; Claussen & Crittenden, 1991). In toddlerhood, thedevelopment of compliance and self-regulation can be promoted by maternal sensitivity (Belsky, Woodworth, & Crnic,1996).

Intrusive mothers show anger and irritation or handle their infants roughly. They demonstrate overstimulation whichmight interfere with their children’s goal-directed activities (Hart, Field, Jones, & Yando, 1999; Jones et al., 1997).Research on children’s reaction to intrusiveness finds that children can become avoidant or shut down to protectthemselves from the overwhelming information. Furthermore, they might experience stress as they do not have controlover the interaction and therefore cannot learn how to regulate dyadic interactions. As a consequence, the developmentof self-regulation and the ability to engage in future positive relationships with others may be compromised (Egeland,Carson, & Sroufe, 1993; Egeland & Farber, 1984; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991). In addition, because intrusivemothers tend to take the lead in task and play situations, children may develop feelings of incompetence, which in turncan lead to disengagement, aggression, or other negative interpersonal styles (Kahen, Katz, & Gottman, 1994; Tronick,1989).

The aforementioned studies describe the direct effects of sensitivity and intrusiveness on child adjustment. Lately ithas been suggested by a number of researchers that the complexity of development can be better explained by exam-ining interaction effects (Crockenberg, 1986; Hinde, 1989; Kochanska, 1997; Magnusson & Stattin, 1998). Researchby Early et al. (2002) shows that sensitive mothering is related to more active engagement with other children inkindergarten, but only for children who were highly fearful at 15 months. High reactivity to novelty, in conjunctionwith withdrawal and poor attention control, predicted anxious behavior only when mothers were less engaged orless sensitive (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2006). Among children high in irritable distress and low in effortful control,maternal intrusiveness significantly predicted externalizing behavior (Morris et al., 2002).

These results provide support for the assumption that maternal behavior alters developmental trajectories associatedwith child temperament (Thomas & Chess, 1989). Thus, the first aim of this study was to examine the moderatingeffect of sensitivity and intrusiveness on the link between temperament and child negative behavior in interactions withmothers. We expected that children low in soothability and high in activity level and frustration would show a higherdegree of negative behavior, but only when maternal behavior was characterized by a lower level of sensitivity or ahigher level of intrusiveness.

Alternately, it may be that temperament affects parenting which in turn affects children’s behavior. In other words,parenting may act as a mediator in the relationship between child temperament and child negative interactive behaviors.With respect to maternal sensitivity, findings are inconclusive: some studies find clear negative effects of difficult

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 369

temperament on sensitivity, others showed that difficult children elicit sensitive responses (Crockenberg, 1986). Inthe present study, we hypothesized that high frustration and activity level, and low soothability would lead to lowersensitivity. With respect to intrusiveness, there is also evidence that children’s temperament affects this dimension ofparenting. Lee and Bates (1985) showed that children with difficult temperament elicit more intrusive maternal behaviorand intrusiveness is related to increased child negative behavior (Ispa et al., 2004). Research by Wachs (1987) showsthat high activity level is linked with high environmental exploration, which results in greater-than-normal amountsof punishment from parents. Harsh parenting in turn, is likely to result in anger and resentment in the child (Codler,Lochman, & Wells, 1997). More adaptable, sociable children on the other hand, elicit warm and responsive parenting,which in turn decreases children’s expression of negative behavior (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). Based onthese findings, the second aim of our study was to examine if maternal sensitivity and intrusiveness could mediate thelink between the temperament of the child and negative behavior in interaction with the mother. It was hypothesizedthat high frustration and activity level and low soothability in children would be linked to low maternal sensitivity andhigh intrusiveness, which in turn would be associated with higher child negative behavior.

The present study extends previous work in this field in several ways. In contrast to most research that has focused ondifficult temperament in general, our study examined specific temperamental characteristics and this approach mightmark some important differences between temperamental characteristics. We decided to focus on boys only, becauseif they show difficult temperament they are more likely to develop problems when maternal caregiving is not optimal(Rubin, Hastings, Chen, Stewart, & McNichol, 1998). Therefore, our findings should be interpreted carefully as theyare only valid for boys. Moreover, we selected two maternal behaviors, intrusiveness and sensitivity, which appearto be especially important for toddlers’ development. Most prior research relied on self-reports of maternal behavior,whereas in the current study, observational methods were utilized. Furthermore, former research usually examinedeither the moderating or the mediating role of parenting, whereas in the present study both possible roles are tested.With this approach we might be able to capture better the complexity of theoretical models describing temperamentand parenting associations. Finally, unlike most studies focusing on both sensitivity and intrusiveness that examinedclinical samples of mothers (Clark et al., 2000; Hart et al., 1999), we studied a community sample in an effort to ruleout some confounding factors related to maternal psychopathology, such as biased temperament reports and increasedintrusiveness related to depression (Austin, Hadzi-Pavlovic, Leader, Saint, & Parker, 2005; Brennan et al., 2000).

1. Method

1.1. Participants

This study is a part of a longitudinal project “Development of Physical Aggression and Unintentional Injuries inPreschool Children” consisting of four measurements in six-month intervals. The present study used only the first waveof data, because observational data were not available in the other waves. Due to the focus of the longitudinal project(i.e., the development of externalizing behavior), only boys were included. The sample of 112 families (father, mother,son) was drawn from Infant and Toddler Clinics in three cities in the Netherlands. These clinics follow up all childrenfrom birth up to four years of age and they systematically check the child’s growth and development. So, the sampleis considered to be a community sample of typically developing children. The age of the children ranged from 16 to19 months (M = 16.9 months, S.D. = .58 months) and 94.6% of them were Dutch. Most children (97%) lived in intactfamilies. Highly educated parents were overrepresented in the present study: 63% of mothers and 76% of fathers had acollege degree or more, while for the Dutch generation in general this appears to be approximately 30% for both menand women.

A recruitment letter explaining the goals of the project was sent to 192 families, and followed up by a telephonecall. Of these 192 families, 117 (60.9%) agreed to participate. Frequent reasons for not participating were inability tomake contact with the family, a lack of interest in the topic of the project, or a member of the family not wanting tocooperate. Furthermore, the observational data of five families were not coded due to technical problems.

1.2. Procedures

After receiving informed consent of the participants, questionnaires were sent to the parents by mail two weeksbefore the home observations took place and they were collected during the home visit. The observations (described

370 N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

later) were conducted by well-trained research assistants who gave standardized instructions to each parent. The homevisit lasted about one and a half hour including some other tasks not used in the present study.

1.3. Measures

1.3.1. Child temperamentThree temperamental features, frustration, soothability and activity level, were measured by the corresponding scales

of Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire (ECBQ) (Putnam, Gartstein, & Rothbart, 2006). Mothers were asked toreport on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which each item applied to their child (1 = never to 7 = always). Frustration(N = 9 items) indicates negative affect, including unease, worry, or nervousness related to anticipated pain or distressand/or potentially threatening situations (e.g., “When your child was given something to eat or drink that s/he did notlike, how often did s/he push the plate away?”). Soothability (N = 14 items) assesses rate of recovery from peak distress,excitement, or general arousal (e.g., “Following an exciting event, how often did your child calm down quickly?”).Activity level (N = 7 items) refers to the level of gross motor activity, including rate and extent of locomotion duringa variety of daily situations (e.g., “How often during the last two weeks did your child play games which involvedrunning around, banging, or dumping out toys?”). Cronbach’s alphas for frustration, soothability, and activity level,respectively, were .72, .84 and .66.

1.3.2. ParentingMaternal parenting behavior was observed and assessed in a 13-min structured play session with the child. The

mother was asked to have the child play with blocks, to ‘read’ a set of picture books and to clean up the toys atthe end of the session. The 1990 revision of the Erickson scales was used to measure two dimensions at a 7-pointrating scale (Egeland, Erickson, Clemenhagen-Moon, Hiester, & Korfmacher, 1990; Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland,1985). Sensitivity refers to the timing and coordination of hints in response to the child’s efforts and actions. Intru-siveness assesses the lack of respect for the child’s autonomy by interfering with the child’s needs, interests orbehaviors. Well-trained research assistants who were blind to the hypotheses of the study as well as children’s tem-perament scores coded the observations. Inter-coder reliability in terms of intra-class correlations was establishedon approximately 20% of the videotapes. Intra-class correlations of sensitivity and intrusiveness were .80 and .79,respectively.

Child negative behavior was observed in the same observation situation, using a similar 7-point rating scale as incase of the parenting dimensions (Egeland et al., 1990; Erickson et al., 1985). Child negative behavior refers to thechild’s anger, dislike, and hostility towards the parent. A high score is given if the infant is repeatedly and overtly angrywith the parent, showing an angry and resistant expression, pouting, or being unreasonably demanding. A moderatescore indicates the expression of negative behavior on several isolated occasions or on one significant occasion duringthe session. The Erickson scales (both maternal and child behavior) were scored by two raters and they gave one overallscore for one interaction. The intra-class correlation of child negative behavior was .81.

2. Results

2.1. Descriptive analyses

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and the correlations between the assessed variables. The intercorre-lations among three temperament traits indicate that these traits are relatively independent: frustration was related tosoothability, but activity level was not linked to any other temperamental variable. Soothability appeared to be sig-nificantly correlated with maternal intrusiveness, with high soothability being related to lower level of intrusiveness.Frustration and activity level were not related to any of the maternal variables. Low soothability and high frustrationwere correlated with high child negative behavior, whereas activity level was not related to child negative behavior.Maternal intrusiveness showed significant negative correlations with maternal sensitivity. Both maternal behaviorswere related to child negative behavior in the expected direction; higher levels of intrusiveness and lower levels ofsensitivity were related to more negative behavior in interaction with the mother.

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 371

Table 1Means, standard deviations and correlations of all assessed variables (N = 112)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Temperament1. Frustration –2. Soothability −.38** –3. Activity level .18 −.11 –

Maternal behavior4. Sensitivity −.09 −.12 .10 –5. Intrusiveness .14 −.24* .07 −.44** –

Child behavior6. Negative behavior .24* −.20* .05 −.25** .30** –

M 3.42 5.82 3.90 4.45 2.04 2.05S.D. .86 .63 .90 1.33 1.19 .08

* p < .05.** p < .01.

2.2. Maternal behavior as a moderator of the relation between child temperament and negative behavior

To determine if maternal sensitivity moderated the relation between child temperament and child negative behaviorin interactions with the mother, three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted (one for each dimensions oftemperament) with child negative behavior as the criterion. Child temperament was entered in Step 1, and maternalsensitivity in Step 2. Finally, the interaction term between that dimension of temperament and maternal sensitivitywas entered in Step 3. The last step of the regressions thus tested the moderating effect of maternal sensitivity on thelink between temperament and negative behavior. Frustration, soothability, activity level, and maternal sensitivity werecentered in order to avoid multicollinearity.

Table 2 indicates that frustration as well as maternal sensitivity had significant direct effects on child negativebehavior. Maternal sensitivity however, did not moderate the relation between frustration and child negative behavioras the interaction term was not significant. Therefore Model 2, with frustration and maternal sensitivity as predictors,was accepted. This model explained 12% of the variance in child negative behavior.

In the second regression analysis, both soothability and sensitivity had significant direct effects on child negativebehavior, but the interaction term was not significant. Thus, maternal sensitivity was not a moderator in the relation

Table 2Results of hierarchical regression analysis testing moderational effects of maternal sensitivity on the link between three temperamental traits andchild negative behavior (N = 112)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (S.E.) β B (S.E.) β B (S.E.) β

Step 1: Frustration .32 (.11) .26** .30 (.11) .24** .27 (.12) .22*

Step 2: Sensitivity −.19 (.07) −.23* −.19 (.07) −.23*

Step 3: Frustration × sensitivity −.05 (.09) −.05

Step 1: Soothability −.36 (.16) −.21* −.32 (.16) −.19* −.32 (.16) −.19*

Step 2: Sensitivity −.18 (.07) −.23* −.18 (.07) −.22*

Step 3: Soothability × sensitivity .19 (.11) .15

Step 1: Activity level .03 (.11) .03 .06 (.11) .05 .06 (.11) .05Step 2: Sensitivity −.21 (.08) −.25** −.23 (.08) −.28**

Step 3: Activity level × sensitivity −.13 (.08) −.16

*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

372 N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

Table 3Results of hierarchical regression analysis testing moderational effects of maternal intrusiveness on the link between three temperamental traits andchild negative behavior (N = 112)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B (S.E.) β B (S.E.) β B (S.E.) β

Step 1: Frustration .32 (.11) .26** .27 (.11) .22* .29* (.12) .23Step 2: Intrusiveness .24 (.08) .27** .25* (.08) .28Step 3: Frustration × intrusiveness −.04 (.08) −.05

Step 1: Soothability −.36 (.16) −.21* .26 (.16) −.15 −.41 (.12) .23Step 2: Intrusiveness .24 (.08) .27** .26 (.09) .29**

Step 3: Soothability × intrusiveness −.08 (.14) .11

Step 1: Activity level .03 (.11) .03 .01 (.11) .01 −.04 (.11) −.03Step 2: Intrusiveness .27 (.08) .30** .31 (.08) .34***

Step 3: Activity level × intrusiveness .17 (.08) .20*

*p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.

between soothability and child negative behavior. Model 2, with soothability and maternal sensitivity as predictors wasaccepted, explaining 10% of the variance of child negative behavior (Table 2).

As Table 2 shows, activity level was not a significant predictor of child negative behavior. Maternal sensitivityentered in the second step had a significant direct effect on child negative behavior, but the interaction term was notsignificant. Thus, maternal sensitivity did not moderate this link. Our final model, explaining 6% of the variance ofchild negative behavior, was Model 2 with activity level and sensitivity as predictors.

To determine if maternal intrusiveness moderated the relation between child temperament and negative behaviorthe same procedure was applied. Three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with child negative behavioras the criterion. In Step 1, temperament was entered and centered scores for maternal intrusiveness were entered inStep 2. Finally, the interaction term between the specific temperament variables and intrusiveness was entered as athird step.

Table 3 indicates that both frustration and maternal intrusiveness showed significant direct effects on child negativebehavior, but the interaction term was not significant. Therefore Model 2, with frustration and intrusiveness as predictors,was accepted, which explained 14% of the variance of child negative behavior.

Soothability had a significant direct effect. This effect disappeared however, after adding maternal intrusiveness. Inthe third model the interaction term was not significant, thus maternal intrusiveness did not appear to be moderatoron the relation between soothability and child negative behavior. Our final model (Model 2) with soothability andintrusiveness as predictors explained 11% of the variance of child negative behavior.

While activity level did not appear to be a significant predictor of child negative behavior, maternal intrusivenessdid show a significant direct effect. Furthermore, as Table 3 shows, the interaction term appeared to be significant andexplained an additional 4% of variance with a total of 13%.

This significant interaction was interpreted by plotting regression lines for high (more than 1 standard deviationabove the mean) and low (more than 1 standard deviation below the mean) standardized values of intrusiveness andactivity level (Holmbeck, 1997). As can be seen in Fig. 1, children with lower activity levels showed similar levels ofchild negative behavior, regardless of maternal intrusiveness, whereas intrusiveness made a difference for children withhigh activity levels. Children with higher activity levels showed a higher degree of negative behavior when maternalbehavior was characterized by high intrusiveness. When intrusiveness was low, children with higher activity levelsshowed less negative behavior.

2.3. Maternal behavior as a mediator of the relation between child temperament and negative behavior

The next question was whether maternal behavior mediates the relationship between temperament and child negativebehavior. In order to test the mediational model, significant relationships between the predictor, the mediator, and the

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 373

Fig. 1. The slopes of child activity level predicting child negative behavior at varying levels of maternal intrusiveness.

dependent variable are required (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Maternal sensitivity was significantly correlated neither withtemperament, nor with child negative behavior (see Table 1), therefore a mediational analysis for sensitivity was notjustified by the data.

The conditions to test the mediational model were met only in case of soothability. Significant relationships existedbetween soothability and child negative behavior (r = −.20), between soothability and maternal intrusiveness (r = −.24),and also between intrusiveness and negative behavior (r = .30). The mediational hypothesis is supported if the signifi-cant relationship between soothability and child negative behavior diminishes when the assumed mediator (maternalintrusiveness) is entered as a predictor in a regression analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The association between sootha-bility and child negative behavior was reduced to non-significance (B = −.15, p = .11) when the effect of intrusivenesswas controlled. A Sobel test was conducted with an SPSS macro (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001) developed by Preacherand Hayes (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The test revealed that maternal intrusiveness mediated to a significant extent(t = −2.01 p = .04), the influence of soothability upon negative behavior. Even though the Baron and Kenny methodis still the most widely used in psychology research to test mediation, according to MacKinnon this procedure is notalways accurate in case of the non-normal distribution of the indirect effect. MacKinnon and colleagues (MacKinnon,Lockwood, & Williams, 2004) developed a technique to calculate the confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effectbased on the distribution of the product of two normal random variables. If the CI does not include zero, the inter-vening variable effect is significant. By using the program PRODCLIN (MacKinnon, 2006) we calculated the CI forthe indirect effect of soothability on child negative behavior through maternal intrusiveness at p = .05 was [−.2591,−.0248], indicating that this effect was significant.

3. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to shed light on the relations between child temperament, maternal behavior, andchild negative behavior during interactions with mother. Three assessed temperamental traits were moderately relatedand showed a different pattern of associations with maternal behavior and child negative behavior. Child frustration andsoothability were both related to child negative behavior, but only soothability was related to both maternal behavior(intrusiveness) and to child negative behavior. This finding is in line with former research demonstrating soothabilitymay be a direct trigger for differences in maternal behavior (Calkins, Hungerford, & Dedmon, 2004), and a coredimension of difficult temperament.

Contrary to our expectations, activity level was related neither to maternal behavior nor to child negative behavior.This finding might be explained by the fact that the sample consisted of boys only. According to the meta-analysisof Campbell and Eaton (1999), there is a significant gender difference in terms of activity level, with boys beingbiologically predisposed to be more active, but they are also found that parents who tend to encourage active play inboys (Mercurio, 2003). It is therefore possible that high activity level in boys is not perceived as difficult per se, asit might be in concordance with the mothers’ expectations. Similarly, the lack of relation between activity level andmaternal behavior may also be the function of the developmental period. During toddlerhood, children are generallymore active due to the increased abilities in crawling and walking. Soothability on the other hand, was found to be atrigger for intrusiveness, thus it can be assumed that low soothability might cause frustration for many mothers.

374 N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

Whereas some researchers have suggested that parenting moderates the effects of temperament on child maladjust-ment (Kochanska, 1997; Magnusson & Stattin, 1998), others assume that parenting acts as a mediator (Codler et al.,1997). Our study revealed different relations for the two maternal behaviors, sensitivity and intrusiveness.

We found that maternal sensitivity neither moderated, nor mediated the relation between temperament and childnegative behavior, but it is an important predictor of child negative behavior, regardless of child temperament. Thisfinding has several important implications. First, the independence of child temperament suggests that sensitivity mightbe a trait-like parental characteristic. This assumption is supported by the study of Dallaire and Weinraub (2005), whofound that sensitivity shows considerable relative stability in the first six years of life. That is, parents who are sensitivewhen their child is six months old tend to still be sensitive when their child is six years of age. Another explanation forthe lack of relation between child temperament and maternal sensitivity concerns the age of the children in the presentstudy. Previous research has shown that maternal sensitivity can be influenced by infant temperament (Crockenberg& Leerkes, 2003). However, this effect might disappear as the child gets older (Putnam et al., 2002). Finally, the largemain effect suggests that sensitive parenting might prevent child negative behavior and thus, might have a positiveimpact on the quality of mother–toddler relationship.

In contrast to sensitivity, which showed only a main effect, intrusiveness appeared to play both a moderating and amediating role. Specifically, intrusiveness moderates the link between activity level and negative behavior and mediatesthe relation between soothability and negative behavior. We found that high activity level is linked to high child negativebehavior only in the presence of high intrusiveness, which confirms our expectations. Children with low activity levelsseem to be unaffected by maternal intrusiveness, whereas highly active children probably feel overcontrolled, and thusshow more negative behavior toward the mother. This is in line with prior research showing that maternal intrusivenessin the second year of life is more strongly predictive of later behavior problems among temperamentally difficultchildren (Belsky et al., 1996).

Besides the moderation effect, we also found that intrusiveness mediates the link between soothability and negativebehavior. Low soothability in children is linked to high maternal intrusiveness, which in turn is associated with highnegative behavior. Interaction with a child who is difficult-to-soothe can be rather frustrating for many mothers. Thisfrustration can lead to intrusive behavior of the mother as an attempt to control the interaction with her child. Theseefforts to regulate the situation can hinder the development of affect-regulation in children, and as a result, childrenshow more negative behavior. However, the results raise the question—what adequate maternal behavior would bein the case of children with low soothability. It is easy to imagine that a fussy, crying child motivates the mother tointerfere with child behavior and to be overtly controlling. An important implication of these findings is that parentsmay need help in understanding the unique nature of their child, and in finding the appropriate ways of parenting ofthat child.

Although the current study is an important first step in understanding the development of child negative behavior,it is limited in several ways. First, the sample consisted of only boys, thus our findings cannot be interpreted forchildren in general, further studies are necessary to examine if the same processes can be observed in mother–daughterdyads. Moreover, the participating caregivers were relatively higher in their levels of education in comparison withnon-participants, which might have systematically influenced the results. The homogeneity of the sample might restrictthe variance in the parenting measures. Former studies found that mothers of higher socioeconomic status show moresensitivity, which is the result of their better knowledge on parenting and higher social support (Conger & Donnellan,2007), thus leading to more optimal child outcomes. Therefore, future research should test whether the same effectscan be found in a sample in which more heterogeneous SES populations are represented. Second, in the currentstudy, temperament was assessed using a questionnaire completed by the mother. Thus, they might have labeled theirchildren as difficult-to-soothe because they could not recognize the children’s needs and they were not able to respondadequately. In future research, other measures and additional informants may provide a better assessment of childtemperament and maternal behaviors. Third, even though using observations is a major strength of our study, thebrevity of the observational period might be a limitation. According to van Bakel and Riksen-Walraven (2002), shortobservations can provide considerable information regarding mother–child relationships, but additional studies areneeded to compare data gathered by longer and shorter observations. Another suggestion for future studies examiningmother–toddler interaction is the use of a new coding system suggested by Aksan, Kochanska, and Ortmann (2006). Theso-called mutually responsive orientation (MRO) method provides a new approach to capture real dyadic interactionsinstead of concentrating on individual behaviors. Finally, another important limitation of our study is that our data arecross-sectional, thus conclusions cannot be drawn about the direction of effects. In the future, longitudinal investigations

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 375

are needed to confirm the above-discussed results as well as to examine the predictive value of child negative behaviorfor child maladjustment.

The major strength of the study was the focus on a potentially important, but rarely examined phenomenon oftoddler negative behavior in interactions with the mother. Moreover, unlike many studies examining child and maternalbehavior, we rely on observations and not exclusively on self-report data. Our investigation confirmed former researchclaiming that sensitivity plays an important role in the development of mother–child relationships. Furthermore, ourstudy was also in line with research of Rubin et al. (1998) claiming that boys are more susceptible to parentinginfluences; therefore more attention to mother–son dyads should be paid. The fact that both moderation and meditationhypotheses were supported in the case of intrusiveness, can help to explain the inconclusive findings of former research.Earlier, many researchers focused on difficult temperament and its relation to different aspects of parenting which madeit difficult to find unequivocal relations. Our study however, demonstrates that it is worthwhile to examine more specificcharacteristics of both children and mothers. Moreover, it suggests that mothers who demonstrate less sensitivity and/ormore intrusiveness should be assisted in individualized interventions which take into account the characteristics ofboth children and mothers.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1974). Infant-mother attachment and social development: Socialisation as a product of reciprocalresponsiveness to signals. London: Cambridge University Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum.

Aksan, N., Kochanska, G., & Ortmann, M. R. (2006). Mutually responsive orientation between parents and their young children: Toward method-ological advances in the science of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 833–848.

Austin, M., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Leader, L., Saint, K., & Parker, G. (2005). Maternal trait anxiety, depression and life event stress in pregnancy:Relationships with infant temperament. Early Human Development, 81, 183–190.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bates, J. E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299–319.Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of temperamental resistance to control and restrictive parenting in the

development of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 34, 983–995.Beckwith, L., Rodning, C., & Cohen, S. (1992). Preterm children at early adolescence and continuity and discontinuity in maternal responsiveness

from infancy. Child Development, 63, 1198–1208.Belsky, J., Woodworth, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Troubled family interaction during toddlerhood. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 477–495.Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1990). Activities and interactions of mothers and their firstborn infants in the first six months of life:

Covariation, stability, continuity, correspondence, and prediction. Child Development, 61, 1206–1217.Brennan, P. A., Hammen, C., Andersen, M. J., Bor, W., Najman, J. M., & Williams, G. M. (2000). Chronicity, severity, and timing of maternal

depressive symptoms: Relationship with child outcomes at age 5. Developmental Psychology, 36, 759–766.Buss, D. M. (1981). Predicting mother-child interactions from children’s activity level. Developmental Psychology, 17, 598–605.Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 59(2–3), 53.Calkins, S. D., Hungerford, A., & Dedmon, S. E. (2004). Mothers’ interactions with their temperamentally frustrated infants. Infant Mental Health

Journal, 25, 219–239.Campbell, S. B. (2002). Behavior problems in preschool children. New York: Guilford Press.Campbell, D. W., & Eaton, W. O. (1999). Sex differences in the activity levels of infants. Infant and Child Development, 8, 1–17.Campbell, S. B., Ewing, L. J., Breaux, A. M., & Szumowski, E. K. (1986). Parent-referred problem three-year-olds: Follow-up at school entry.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 473–488.Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mother’s personality and its interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 274–285.Claussen, A. H., & Crittenden, P. M. (1991). Physical and psychological maltreatment: Relations among types of maltreatment. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 15, 5–18.Codler, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of children’s fear and activity level on the relations between parenting

practices and childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251–263.Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 58(1), 175–199.Crockenberg, S. C. (1986). Are temperamental differences in babies associated with predictable differences in care-giving? San Francisco, CA:

Josey-Bass.Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2003). Parental acceptance, postpartum depression, and maternal sensitivity: Mediating and moderating

processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 80.

376 N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377

Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2006). Infant and maternal behavior moderate reactivity to novelty to predict anxious behavior at 2.5 years.Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 17–34.

Dallaire, D. H., & Weinraub, M. (2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the first 6 years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20,201–219.

de Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. ChildDevelopment, 68, 571–591.

Early, D. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., et al. (2002). Maternal sensitivity and child wariness inthe transition to kindergarten. Parenting, 2, 355–377.

Egeland, B., Carson, E., & Sroufe, A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528.Egeland, B., Erickson, M. F., Clemenhagen-Moon, J., Hiester, M. K., & Korfmacher, J. (1990). 24 months tools coding manual: Project STEEP

revised 1990 from mother–child project scales. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and change over time. Child Development, 55,

753–771.Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of regulations and emotionality

to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–1134.Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social

functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136–157.Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a

high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment: Theory and research. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development (pp. 147–166). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fagot, B., & Gauvain, M. (1997). Mother-child problem solving: Continuity through the early childhood years. Child Development, 33, 480–488.Frankel, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1990). Mother-toddler problem-solving: Antecedents in attachment, home behavior, and temperament. Child

Development, 61, 810–819.Gandour, M. J. (1989). Activity level as a dimension of temperament in toddlers: Its relevance for the organismic specificity hypothesis. Child

Development, 60, 1092–1098.Goldsmith, H. H. (1996). Studying temperament via construction of the toddler behaviour assessment questionnaire. Child Development, 67,

218–235.Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., et al. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches.

Child Development, 58(2), 505.Hagekull, B. (1994). Infant temperament and early childhood functioning: Possible relations to the five-factor model. In C. F. Halverson, G. A.

Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 227–240). Hillsdale:Erlbaum.

Hart, S., Field, T., Jones, N., & Yando, R. (1999). Intrusive and withdrawn behaviours of mothers interacting with their infants and boyfriends.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 239–245.

Hinde, R. A. (1989). Temperament as an intervening variable. In J. E. Bates & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 27–33). NewYork: Wiley.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from thechild-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

Huang, K.-Y., Teti, D., Caughy, M., Feldstein, S., & Genevro, J. (2007). Mother-child conflict interaction in the toddler years: Behavior patterns andcorrelates. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(2), 219.

Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S., Robinson, J., Boyce, L., et al. (2004). Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth,and mother-toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low-income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child Development, 75, 1613–1631.

Jones, N. A., Field, T., Fox, N. A., Davalos, M., Malphurs, J., Carraway, K., et al. (1997). Infants of intrusive and withdrawn mothers. Infant Behaviorand Development, 20, 175–186.

Kahen, V., Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Linkages between parent-child interaction and conversations of friends. Social Development, 3,238–254.

Kivijarvi, M., Voeten, M. J. M., Niemela, P., Raiha, H., Lertola, K., & Piha, J. (2001). Maternal sensitivity behavior and infant behavior in earlyinteraction. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 627–640.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of attachment—multiple pathways to emerging internalization.Child Development, 66(3), 597–615.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. DevelopmentalPsychology, 33, 228–240.

Lee, C. L., & Bates, J. E. (1985). Mother-Child interaction at age two years and perceived difficult temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314–1325.MacKinnon, D. P. (2006, June). PRODCLIN [Computer software]. Available from http://www.public.asu.edu/∼davidpm/ripl/Prodclin/MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling

methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128.Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (1998). Person-context interaction theories. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 685–759). New York: Wiley.Mercurio, C. M. (2003). Guiding boys in the early years to lead healthy emotional lives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 255.Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as

interacting predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461–471.

N. Szabo et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 366–377 377

Mouton-Simien, P., McCain, A. P., & Kelley, M. L. (1997). The development of the Toddler Behavior Screening Inventory. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 25, 59–64.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Affect dysregulation in the mother-child relationship in the toddler years: Antecedents andconsequences. Development And Psychopathology, 16, 43–68.

Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1996). Expressions of the attachment relationship outside of the Strange Situation. Child Development, 67, 915–927.Pettit, G. S., Harrist, A. W., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1991). Family interaction, social cognition, and children’s subsequent relations. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 383–402.Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research

Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests [Computer

software]. Available from http://www.unc.edu/∼preacher/sobel/sobel.htmPrior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., Pedlow, R., & Oberklaid, F. (1992). Transient versus stable behavior problems in a normative sample: Infancy to

school age. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 423–443.Putnam, S. P., Gartstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler temperament: The early childhood

behavior questionnaire. Infant Behavior & Development, 29, 386–401.Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.,

Vol. 1, pp. 255–278). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.

Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.Rubin, K. H., Hastings, P., Chen, X., Stewart, S., & McNichol, K. (1998). Intrapersonal and maternal correlates of aggression, conflict, and

externalizing problems in toddlers. Child Development, 69, 1614–1629.Schaugency, E. A., & Fagot, B. (1993). The prediction of adjustment at age 7 from activity level at age 5. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

21, 29–50.Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., Giovannelli, J., & Winslow, E. B. (2001). Infant and toddler pathways leading to early externalizing disorders. Journal

of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 36–43.Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1989). Temperament and follow-up to adulthood. In R. Porter & G. M. Collins (Eds.), Temperamental differences in

infants and young children. London: Pitman.Tronick, E. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–119.van Bakel, H. J. A., & Riksen-Walraven, M. (2002). Quality of infant-parent attachment as reflected in infant interactive behavior during instructional

tasks. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 387–394.Wachs, T. (1987). Specificity of environmental actions as manifest in environment correlates of toddlers’ master motivation. Developmental

Psychology, 3, 782–790.Windle, M. (1992). A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adolescent problem behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28, 522–530.