Compliance and Internalization in Preschool Foster Children

Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Compliance and Internalization in Preschool Foster Children Brenda Jones Harden a,⁎, Aimée Drouin Duncan b, Colleen I. Morrison b, Carlomagno Panlilio b, Robert B. Clyman c a b c

Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States University of Maryland, College Park, United States University of Colorado, Denver, CO, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 January 2015 Received in revised form 27 April 2015 Accepted 28 April 2015 Available online 5 May 2015 Keywords: Foster care Parenting Compliance Internalization Preschool Social development

a b s t r a c t Child compliance and internalization are socio-cognitive developmental processes which are critical for children's social outcomes in multiple arenas. These developmental processes are found to be compromised in maltreated children. The current study was designed to add to the extremely limited literature on compliance and internalization in maltreated children in foster care. Compliance and internalization tasks were administered to preschool foster children, videotaped and later coded. Through parent-report questionnaires completed by the foster parents and observations of the foster home, the relation of compliance/internalization to child behavior problems, foster care experiences, and the foster home environment was examined. Findings revealed that most children showed committed compliance, but over 50% of children exhibited “deviation” behaviors in the internalization task. HOME acceptance scores (via observation of parent and child in home setting) significantly contributed to children's compliance levels but did not significantly contribute to their internalization. Internalization was related to children's externalizing behavior problems. These findings are considered in the context of future research and practice with respect to young children in foster care. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The first years of life are marked by unparalleled physiological, neurological, and psychological development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Maltreatment that occurs in these early years can derail young children's development and may be detrimental to their long-term developmental outcomes. Further, foster care placement rates for maltreated children are highest during infancy and early childhood (Jones Harden & Klein, 2011), which may lead to even more challenges to young maltreated children's development. The research is unequivocal in that children in the U.S. foster care system are at increased risk for poor developmental outcomes (NSCAW, 2001), which may be related to their early functioning and/or the compromised environments in which they were reared prior to their foster care placement. Specifically, compared to children who do not experience maltreatment and subsequent placement in foster care, children in foster care demonstrate poorer social skills and higher rates of externalizing behavioral problems (Cheung, Goodman, Leckie, & Jenkins, 2011; Vanschoonlandt, Vanderfaeillie, Van Holen, De Maeyer, & Robberechts, 2013). However, there is a dearth of studies on other social–emotional processes in this population of children. Specifically, despite theory and research that highlight the salience of compliance and internalization as socialization goals for preschool children, there is extremely ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.J. Harden).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.04.013 0190-7409/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

limited research in this area with respect to maltreated children. Compliance can be defined as children's adherence to parental standards in general, whereas internalization can be considered children's compliance with parental standards in the absence of the caregiver (Feldman & Klein, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). Early compliance and internalization have implications for children's moral development, behavioral functioning, and mental health (Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995). In fact, child noncompliance has been documented to be the primary reason parents pursue mental health treatment for their children (Chamberlain & Smith, 2003). Given that foster children show social– emotional deficits in other areas, it seems important to understand compliance and internalization in this population. The current study explores compliance and internalization among preschool aged foster children, the relation of these processes to children's behavior problems, as well as the influence of the foster home environment on compliance and internalization. Attachment theory suggests that insensitive, unresponsive, or rejecting parenting during the first years of life, such as what is experienced by maltreated children, results in deficits in cognitive and social–emotional functioning (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, 1984; Egeland & Farber, 1984). Children who experience insecure attachment lack concurrent experiences of positive social interactions with their caregivers (Stayton, Hogan, & Ainsworth, 1971). Thus, maltreated children may be unable to successfully integrate their caregivers' expectations for their behavior and to receive rewards for meeting those expectations, which may prohibit

104

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

their development of compliance and subsequent internalization (Emde, Biringen, Clyman, & Oppenheim, 1991; Kochanska & Aksan, 2006; Maccoby, 1992). Albeit very limited, there is evidence that maltreatment results in maladaptive responses to these compromised child–caregiver interactions that affect children's compliance and internalization (Koenig, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2000; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Although to our knowledge there is no study which examines compliance with and internalization of parental standards for maltreated children in foster care, from a theoretical standpoint, these constructs may be even more complex among this group of children. It is likely that children's emotional connection to their foster parents may be attenuated by factors such as duration of the current placement, the number of prior foster homes, and whether the child is related to the foster caregiver (e.g., has had a long-standing relationship with the foster caregiver). There is emerging evidence that these factors do have an impact on the foster home environment and associated child outcomes (Casanueva et al., 2013; Dozier, Stoval, Albus, & Bates, 2001; Farmer, 2009). Compliance behaviors emerge during the preschool years for typically developing children, as their self-regulation and memory capacities mature. For early compliance to be established, children must accurately interpret cues regarding caregiver standards, as well as contextual and environmental cues. First to appear is situational compliance, which occurs when children accept caregivers' standards cooperatively under their caregivers' supervision. Children exhibiting situational compliance are likely to need continuous supervision and coaching from caregivers to stay on task. Later, children exhibit committed compliance, as they begin to adopt caregivers' standards as their own, and do not need continuous monitoring or coaching by their caregivers to remain on task (Kochanska, 2002a). Committed compliance is the most advanced form of compliance, and is critical for the development of internalization. Internalization is exhibited when children consistently comply with their caregivers' standards independent of caregivers' presence or influence, which is taken as evidence that children have internalized caregiver standards as their own (Feldman & Klein, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). Children who do not accept their caregivers' standards may be noncompliant, which has implications for their short- and long-term social developmental trajectories and mental health (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990). Noncompliant behaviors may emerge from negative parent affect (Hoffman, 1982; Patterson, 1982), insecure attachment (Londerville & Main, 1981; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978), and caregiver power assertion (Crockenberg, 1987; Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, & Girnius-Brown, 1987). Some research suggests that maternal responsivity can promote child compliance (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995) and may be particularly beneficial for the development of compliance in vulnerable children, such as those with difficult temperaments (Kochanska & Kim, 2013). Additionally, noncompliance can be a transitional state to compliance when caregivers follow children's episodes of noncompliant behaviors with successful negotiations around caregiver standards (Crockenberg & Litman, 1990). Noncompliance without caregiver negotiations may result in sustained noncompliance, which can render children vulnerable to a range of psychological difficulties throughout childhood and adolescence (Kochanska, 2002a,b; Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990). Some studies have documented gender differences in children's level of compliance and internalization (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska, Aksan, & Koenig, 1995; Kochanska & Kim, 2013). This literature generally suggests that girls demonstrate more committed compliance, less situational compliance, and less passive non-compliance than boys. Research on maltreated children, however, has not consistently shown gender effects for these developmental processes (Koenig et al., 2000; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). There is an abundance of literature linking negative parenting to adverse child outcomes (Karass & Walden, 2005), as well as studies

demonstrating the positive impact of caregiver behaviors, such as maternal positive attention and verbal strategies on children's compliance, internalization, and noncompliance (e.g., Feldman & Klein, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). However, in a study of Head Start children, all of whom were from low socioeconomic backgrounds, WebsterStratton and Hammond (1998) did not find a relation between parental positive behavior and child compliance, though they did find a relation between positive parenting and social competence constructs such as prosocial behaviors and emotion regulation. Such findings suggest that children from higher risk environments may display different patterns of compliance and internalization than their lower risk counterparts. Very few studies have examined parenting processes and compliance and internalization in samples in which there is maltreatment. Crittenden and DiLalla (1988) revealed that maltreated children, particularly those subject to physical abuse, as young as 2-years-old exhibited a different form of compliance behavior, which they termed compulsive compliance. Compulsive compliance is demonstrated when children immediately comply with all caregiver requests, in order to minimize caregiver hostility and to maximize positive interactions (Crittenden & DiLalla, 1988; Hoffman, 1970); this form of compliance does not typically progress to internalization (Ryan et al., 1995). Other comparative studies revealed that maltreated children demonstrated higher levels of noncompliance with caregiver standards than non-maltreated children (Egeland, Sroufe, & Erickson, 1983; Koenig et al., 2000; Oldershaw, Walters, & Hall, 1986; Schindler & Arkowitz, 1986). Another study suggested that abused children were more defiant of parental standards than non-abused children (Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Further, Koenig et al. (2000) observed differences in compliance and internalization processes by maltreatment type: whereas physically abused children displayed more compromised internalization, the internalization exhibited by neglected children was similar to their non-maltreated counterparts. Together, these studies suggest that compliance in maltreated children may develop and operate in a pattern which is inconsistent with the compliance and internalization patterns exhibited by children reared in nonmaltreating environments. Attachment theory and research also underscore the contribution of compromised parent–child relationships to the development of problem behaviors in early childhood and beyond (Fearon & Belsky, 2011). There has been substantial research on problem behaviors, particularly those in the externalizing arena, during the preschool period, highlighting extreme variations in children's development of self-regulation, social competence, and emotional expression (Campbell, 2006). Extant evidence also suggests that children who manifest early onset behavior problems, particularly in the antisocial domain, are likely to exhibit problems that increase in rate and severity over time (e.g., Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002). Further, early externalizing behaviors are associated with concurrent and future difficulties including persistent delinquent behaviors (Bor & Sanders, 2004) and poor academic functioning (Campbell, 2002). There is a high prevalence of externalizing behavior problems in preschool children from low-income backgrounds (Jones Harden et al., 2000). Because children in foster care generally fall into the lowincome category and may have deleterious experiences in foster care, they have been found to have higher rates of behavior problems, particularly when the studies address older maltreated children (e.g., Administration for Children and Families, 2009). The limited evidence on young maltreated children in foster care does suggest higher rates of behavioral problems for this group considered in the context of community samples of non-maltreated children who are not in foster care (Lawrence, Carlson, & Egeland, 2006; Rogosch, Cicchetti, & Aber, 1995; Stahmer et al., 2009). In addition to the impact of foster care experiences (e.g., instability), aspects of the home environment (e.g., parents' cognitive stimulation and emotional support) have been found to be related to preschool foster children's

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

display of externalizing behavior problems (Jones Harden & Whittaker, 2011). This issue is critical to consider in the foster care population as child behavioral problems are strongly negatively related to foster parent satisfaction and retention (Rhodes, Orme, & Buehler, 2001). The literature on the relation between compliance/internalization and behavior problems is small. These constructs have typically been studied in normative populations, in which the incidence of behavior problems is relatively low. The minimal research that has examined this relation reveals that children who are least likely to comply with parental standards are more likely to display problem behavior (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990). Further, extant evidence suggests that the qualitative differences between levels of compliance may explain behavior problems, specifically that children who display committed compliance have lower levels of behavior problems (Kochanska & Kim, 2013). Although few, studies on maltreated children have documented differences in compliance and internalization of caregiver standards among these children when compared to their non-maltreated counterparts. To our knowledge, there is no study that extends these questions to a population of maltreated children in foster care. Although the contribution of parenting processes to compliance and internalization has been investigated, we are unaware of any study that examines the contribution of parent behaviors to compliance and internalization among maltreated preschool age children in foster care. Finally, limited research has revealed a relation between compliance/internalization and behavior problems, however, such studies have not examined maltreated children in foster care. The goal of the current study was to extend the current literature on compliance and internalization of caregiver standards in maltreated foster children. Specifically, our aims were to examine: 1) the extent to which preschool children in foster care comply with and internalize parental standards; 2) whether aspects of the foster care and home environment contribute to compliance and internalization; and 3) the relation between compliance, internalization, and externalizing behavior problems. Based on the very limited literature regarding these constructs with foster children, we anticipated that their capacities to comply and internalize parental standards were more compromised relative to normative samples which have been examined in other studies. Additionally, given the research suggesting that adverse foster care experiences hinder children's social emotional functioning, we predicted that foster care instability would negatively impact compliance and internalization. Consistent with non-maltreatment studies, it was expected that positive parent behaviors would be linked to child compliance and internalization of caregiver standards. Finally, although this question was more exploratory, we anticipated that foster children's capacity to comply with and internalize parental standards would be related to their externalizing problem behavior.

Table 1 Foster Child Characteristics (N = 47). Mean/percent Age (months) Maltreatment onset (months) Age at placement in current foster home (months) Duration of current placement (months) Number of transitions African American Caucasian Mixed parentage Other Maltreatment type Neglect Multiple Emotional Physical Sexual

This study was part of an investigation of preschool foster children and their foster mothers examining a variety of developmental processes in this sample, including vocabulary and emotion labeling skills. The participants were recruited from child welfare agencies in suburban Maryland. The sample for this study was comprised of 47 children involved in the child welfare system due to the following reports: 72% child neglect, 15% multiple forms of abuse and/or neglect, 8% emotional abuse, 2% physical abuse, and 2% sexual abuse. The caregivers were state-sanctioned foster parents, 59% of whom were traditional foster parents (i.e., unrelated) and 41% were kinship care providers. The female caregiver was always the respondent paired with the child in this study. Study participants were primarily African American (i.e., 75% of children and 67% of caregivers). The mean age of child

61 (SD 10.0) 31 (SD 24.5) 43 (SD 21.4) 19 (SD 18.2) 3 (SD 1.7) 75 6 11 8 Percent 72 15 8 2 2

participants was 5 years 1 month (SD = 10 months). The mean age for foster mothers was 47 years (SD = 11 years). Children had been in the care of these foster mothers an average of 19 months (SD = 18.2). More detailed demographic information can be found in Tables 1 and 2. 2.2. Procedures Data were collected over the course of two sessions, the first in foster families' homes and the second in a research laboratory. Two researchers were present at each session. In the home, while one researcher performed direct assessments of children, the other interviewed the foster parents. Observation of foster parent–child interaction was conducted in-vivo over the course of a 2.5 hour visit to the home, which included naturalistic and structured (i.e., parent– child interaction with toy) observational periods. In the research lab, children and their foster parents participated in tasks administered by one researcher while the other researcher filmed the tasks from behind a one-way mirror. Caregivers were given task instructions while the children were entertained by the other researcher. The tasks pertinent to this study are described in the measures section below. 2.3. Measures & coding Demographic data (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status) were collected from a background questionnaire created for this study. Parental behaviors were assessed with the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984), a widely used observational measure with good Table 2 Foster mother characteristics (N = 47).

2. Methods 2.1. Participants

105

Mean Age Race African American Caucasian Other Marital status Married Never married Divorced Widowed Education College High school Less than high school Employment Working Not working

47 (SD 11) Percent 67 13 20 48 16 25 11 62 28 10 76 24

106

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

psychometric properties. We used the early childhood version of the HOME for the current study (EC-HOME). This scale has 45 items (including self-report and observational items) that are scored on a dichotomous scale. Research has documented the utility of this measure with families from low-income and minority backgrounds (see Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & García Coll, 2001). Both researchers (who were trained to .80 reliability on this measure) independently completed the HOME after the data collection home visit. Instead of completing a subset of the HOME assessments for reliability purposes, both researchers on the visit completed the HOME scale. The scores used herein represent a consensus assessment in which both researchers agreed to the score for each item for each family. The Early Childhood HOME has the following subscales: learning materials; language stimulation; physical environment; responsivity; academic stimulation; modeling; variety; and acceptance. Because we were interested in the HOME's relation to social–emotional outcomes, we elected not to use the subscales that were more related to children's cognitive, language, and academic outcomes. Thus, we used the HOME subscales which capture parental emotional support and acceptance of the child's behavior, specifically responsivity (e.g., parent converses with child at least twice during visit) and acceptance (e.g., parent does not scold or yell at or derogate child more than once during visit). Empirical support for this decision emanates from evidence that such aspects of positive parenting are influential on the behavioral outcomes of children in foster care (Whittaker, Jones Harden, See, Meisch, & Westbrook, 2011), and may promote children's compliance and internalization (Feldman & Klein, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). Child behavior problems were assessed via the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4–18; Achenbach, 1991). This is a well-established parent-report measure which can be used with children from ages 4 through 18 years. It has been used with normative and clinical samples, including children from minority and low-income backgrounds. Parents state whether 112 behavioral problems apply to their children, using a 3-item response set (i.e., “not true”, “sometimes or somewhat true”, and “very or often true”). Summary scores are derived for the Internalizing behavioral domain (comprised of somatic, anxious-depressed, and withdrawn subscales) and Externalizing behavioral domain (comprised of aggressive and delinquent subscales). Given the relation between lack of compliance and externalizing problems (Kochanska & Kim, 2013; Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990), the Externalizing subscale was used for the current study. Sample items from the aggressive subscale are: “cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others” and “destroys his/her own things”. Sample items from the delinquent subscale are: “doesn't seem to feel guilty after misbehaving” and “steals at home”. Clinical and borderline cutoff scores have been derived for this measure that are age-based (e.g., delinquency items which are consistent with early child development are examined), and are grounded in research with clinical and normative samples. Raw scores are converted into T scores; a T score of 60–63 is in the borderline range, and 64 or over is in the clinical range for the Externalizing domain. Test–retest reliability ranges from 0.87 to 0.95. Children's compliance with their foster mothers' standards was assessed using a “DO” task which consisted of a cleanup situation in the lab (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995), Foster mothers were asked to engage in free play with their children for 10 minutes with a provided set of toys. Toys included blocks, plastic food, a bowling set, a doctor's kit, stuffed animals, and other small trinkets. After 10 minutes, there was a knock at the door. Foster mothers told their children to clean up and put all the toys away in a large plastic bin. The clean-up session lasted 5 minutes. The clean-up session was the coded segment of the task utilized in this study. Children's internalization of their foster mothers' standards was assessed via the “DON'T” task in the lab (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995), which required foster mothers to ask their children to perform a dull sorting task placing plastic forks, knives, and spoons into separate bins. They also told their children that, when they were done, they

could play with the toys on the floor, including blocks, coloring supplies, and puzzles, but they were not to touch any of the toys on the shelf. The shelf contained toys designed to entice the children including a cash register, a water tank with fish, walkie-talkies, an exotic horse, gumball machines, a Big Bird stuffed animal, a jewelry box, and other small items. The task lasted 12 minutes and did not begin until the foster mother completed the instructions and left the room. Three minutes after the mother left the room, an unfamiliar female entered the room, approached the shelf, and played with the toys. She did not make contact with the child. She played in the room for 1 minute, and then left the child alone in the room for the remainder of the time. Research staff watched through the one-way mirror and were positioned outside the door in the event the child became distressed. 2.4. Coding Three codes were used for the Children's Compliance Task (Kochanska, 2002b). Committed compliance is the code representing the highest level of compliance and was utilized when foster children eagerly picked up toys and put them in the basket, stayed on task with very few or no parental directives, or displayed enthusiasm throughout the task. Situational compliance is the code representing the second level of compliance and was utilized when children cooperated but required consistent foster mother directives, shifted between clean-up and play, or were reluctantly engaged in the task. Opposition represented the least compliant code and was utilized when children displayed passive noncompliance (i.e., child ignored foster mothers clean-up request), overt negotiation (i.e., child questioned the clean-up request and attempted to negotiate), or defiance (i.e., child resisted in anger or challenge request). Coding was done in 30-second increments through the 5-minute clean-up task. One behavior was coded for each 30-second segment (Kochanska et al., 1995). Reliability was established for 21% of cases (100 time segments; α = .93). Five mutually exclusive codes were used for the Children's Internalization Task (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). Internalization is the behavior code that represents children's highest level of internalization; it was utilized when children were sorting the utensils, moving about the room, playing with permitted toys on the floor, or engaging in other behavior not involving the permitted or forbidden toys. Looking with no attempt to touch reflects the second level of internalization; this code was utilized when children glanced at forbidden toys from more than an arm's reach away. Self-correction reflects the third level of internalization; this behavior code was utilized when children began to touch the forbidden toys and stopped spontaneously. Gentle touching reflects the fourth level of internalization; this behavior code was utilized when children touched the forbidden toys, but did not remove them from the shelf, nor engage in dramatic play with them. Finally, deviation is the least internalized behavior code and was utilized when children picked up, removed from the shelf, or engaged in dramatic play with forbidden toys. One behavior was coded for each 5-second segment through the 12-minute task (Kochanska, 2002b). Reliability was established for 21% of cases (1440 time segments; α = .96). 3. Results The objectives of this study were to examine: 1) the extent to which children complied with parental standards with foster mothers present and internalized parental standards with foster mothers absent; 2) whether aspects of the foster care and home environment contributed to compliance and internalization; and 3) the relation between compliance, internalization, and externalizing behavior problems. We began with a descriptive look at the frequencies of children's compliant and internalization behaviors and correlational analyses of the child outcome and demographic variables utilized in the study.

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

As delineated in the methods section, children could display different levels of compliant and internalization behaviors. We coded children for the highest level of compliance they showed in the cleanup task, and found that 72.3% of the children exhibited committed compliance, 19.1% showed situational compliance, and 8.5% presented oppositional behaviors. The following percentages were documented for the observed internalization behaviors: Internalization (no engagement with forbidden toys) — 4.3%; Looking with no attempt to touch — 14.9%; Self-correction — 17.0%; Gentle-touching — 8.5%; Deviation (engaged with forbidden toys) — 55.3%. Our correlation analyses revealed that the compliance and internalization scores were unrelated to each other. There was a positive association between child gender and internalization (r = − .516, p b .05). T-tests comparing boys to girls on both the compliance and internalization scores revealed that there was not a significant difference between girls' and boys' compliance: girls M = 1.25, SD = .53; boys M = 1.30, SD = .56; t(45) = − .342, p = .734. However, there was a significant gender difference in internalization, with boys showing higher levels of internalization: girls M = 3.38, SD = 1.47; boys M = 4.57, SD = .79; t(45) = −3.44, p = .001. Because of the effect of gender on internalization, we controlled for gender in all subsequent analyses (see discussions of regressions below). Because the overwhelming majority of the children were neglected (i.e., 72% with only neglect referrals and 15% with abuse and neglect), we did not use maltreatment type in the analyses. Contrary to our expectations, there were no significant relations between foster care variables (i.e., duration of care, age at first entry, number of foster homes, relative vs. unrelated foster parent) and children's compliance and internalization, so these variables were not included in subsequent analyses. We did find a trend for the correlation between the HOME acceptance subscale and compliance (r = − .278, p b .10), but no correlations between the HOME responsivity subscale and compliance or internalization. Therefore, we only used the acceptance subscale in the regressions reported below. Table 3 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis used to answer our question regarding the level of children's compliance with their foster mothers. The unit of analysis was the child's display of compliance that was at the highest level (i.e., most compliant). We regressed the most compliant behavior code per child from the “DO” task on child gender and HOME acceptance subscale scores. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that child gender and the HOME acceptance subscale score accounted for 15% of the variance in foster children's compliance levels on the DO task. HOME acceptance score contributed significantly to the compliance level (β = − .338, p b .05). Table 4 summarizes the results of the hierarchical regression analysis used to address children's internalization of foster mother standards. The unit of analysis was the child's display of internalization that was at the least level (i.e., least internalized). We regressed the least internalized behavior code per child from the DON'T task on child gender and HOME acceptance subscale score. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that child gender and the HOME acceptance subscale score accounted for 19% of the variance in foster children's internalization levels on the DON'T task. HOME acceptance score did Table 3 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses. Predicting committed compliance in a do task with caregiver present.

Step 1 Child gender

⁎ p b .05.

Internalization level β Step 1 Child gender

R2

Δ R2

.041

.041

Child gender HOME acceptance

Δ R2

.185⁎

.185⁎

.187⁎

.002

.438⁎⁎ −.046

⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.

not contribute significantly to the internalization level (β = − .185, p = .761). Finally, child compliance did not explain a significant proportion of variance in child internalization in our sample (R2 = −.046, F(1, 45) = 1, p = .762). Our final research question concerned the contribution of compliance and internalization to concurrent child externalizing behavior problems. Regarding compliance, we regressed scores on the CBCL externalizing subscale on child gender and whether children showed committed compliance or not (dichotomous variable). Our regression analyses did not yield findings pointing to an influence of compliance on externalizing behavior problems. For internalization, we regressed scores on the CBCL externalizing subscale on child gender and whether children showed deviant internalization (i.e., touched the toys) or not (dichotomous variable). As is depicted in Table 5, we found that children's level of internalization did modestly contribute to their externalizing problems (β = −.38, p b .05) (i.e., the presence of deviant internalization was related to higher levels of externalizing behavior), after controlling for child gender (R2 = .12, F(1, 45) = 1, p b .05). In sum, we did not find a relation between compliance and internalization among preschool age foster children in the current study. We did find that foster mothers who displayed higher levels of acceptance had foster children who were more likely to comply with their standards. In contrast, this characteristic of foster mothers was not related to children's internalization of their standards. Additionally, we found that children's internalization, but not their compliance, was related to their externalizing behavior problems. 4. Discussion The current study explored the compliance and internalization behaviors of preschool age foster children, the relation of these processes to externalizing behavior problems, and foster parent behaviors that may contribute to the development of compliance and internalization. With regard to children's display of different levels of compliance and internalization behaviors, the overwhelming majority of our sample reached the highest level of compliant behavior — committed compliance. This is consistent with the findings of Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska et al., 1995) which showed that the majority of children reached higher levels of compliant behavior. Although we did not compare maltreated foster children to their counterparts who are not maltreated or in foster care, we did consider these findings in the context of the one other study which

Variable

.111⁎

SEB

β

−.48

3.12

−.02

−3.50 −7.84

3.24 3.44

−.18 −.38⁎

B

Step 1 Child gender

.152⁎

R2 .430⁎⁎

Step 2

.204

Step 2 Child gender HOME acceptance

Table 4 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses. Predicting internalization in a don't task without caregiver present.

Table 5 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses summary for internalization group predicting externalizing behavior problem score (N = 47).

Committed compliance level β

107

Step 2

.266 −.338⁎

Child gender Internalization group ⁎ p b .05.

R2

Δ R2

.00

.00

.12⁎

.12⁎

108

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

investigated maltreated children's compliance and internalization (Koenig et al., 2000). The children in our sample were more likely than the Koenig et al. sample to exhibit committed compliance. It is important to note that the Koenig et al. group were still residing with their maltreating birth parents, and had not been placed in foster care. Thus, it is possible that the foster care environment provided the children in the current study more socialization support for the development of compliance and internalization. Nevertheless, we did have a group of children whose highest level of compliance was situational. These children may be exhibiting the less developmentally appropriate “compulsive compliance” proposed by Crittenden and DiLalla (1988), which may reflect maltreated children's attempts to decrease negative interactions with their caregivers. Additionally, Kochanska et al. (1995) have reported that children from normative backgrounds are more challenged by the DON'T (internalization) tasks than the DO (compliance) tasks, a finding which was replicated in our sample. A majority of the children in the current study showed “deviation” behaviors in the DON'T condition; in other words, they could not prevent themselves from touching the prohibited objects when the foster parent was not present. This finding is inconsistent with that of Kochanska et al. (1995) that the majority of children do not display deviant internalization behaviors, though the methodological approaches to this construct were somewhat different between Kochanska et al.'s study and our study. Thus, it may be that young maltreated children in foster care have more difficulty internalizing adult standards than their non-maltreated and non-placed counterparts. The children in our study may be seeking opportunities to develop the autonomy that some developmentalists believe emerges from resisting parental authority (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990). Further, internalization represents a very complex process for children in foster care, who may not have the attachment to foster parents that facilitates their internalization of their parents' standards (Kochanska & Aksan, 2006). Additionally, they may be disengaging themselves from the authority of their foster parents for many reasons, including the need to remain connected to their birth parents (Blacher, 1994) or concerns about their foster parents' emotional commitment to them (Ackerman & Dozier, 2005). Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no other study has examined internalization in young maltreated children residing with their birth families or in foster care (the Koenig et al. study employed a different conceptualization of internalization that resembled our compliance construct), so we can only offer these speculative comments. The “deviation” behaviors exhibited by this group of maltreated children in foster care also were related to foster mothers' reports of their externalizing behavior problems. Thus, children who were unable to resist the temptation of touching prohibited toys were more likely to have aggressive and antisocial behaviors. This finding is consistent with the literature that underscores a relation between compliance/internalization and behavior problems in children (Friedman, Miyake, Robinson, & Hewitt, 2011). Given that internalization represents the highest level of children's ability to integrate parental standards, it may have been too challenging a socialization goal for this group of vulnerable children to attain, which is consistent with the findings of Koenig et al. (2000). This finding does suggest that for young children in foster care, their capacities to internalize may be more important to discern in regard to addressing their behavioral problems than mere compliance in the presence of their caregivers. The relation between compliance and internalization behaviors needs further consideration, particularly in our preschool age foster child sample. Whereas we found that a majority of children were able to exhibit instances of committed compliance, we also found a large proportion displayed “deviation” behaviors regarding their internalization. Developmental scholars remain conflicted about the extent to which compliance and internalization are interdependent (Kochanska et al., 1995). The limited literature on maltreated children and compulsive compliance suggests that compliance and internalization may not

be interdependent in our sample of maltreated children in foster care (Crittenden & DiLalla, 1988; Koenig et al., 2000). This offers further evidence that compliance and internalization in maltreated children need to be investigated further and differently from what is done with nonmaltreated preschool age children. Regarding gender, our findings were inconsistent with those of Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska & Kim, 2013; Kochanska et al., 1995) that girls showed higher levels of compliance and internalization. In fact, although there were no gender differences in compliance among the current sample, boys exhibited higher levels of internalization. Our inconsistent findings may support the postulation by Koenig et al. (2000) that the impact of maltreatment on these developmental processes may be more salient than that of gender. We did not find that maternal responsivity facilitated child compliance, as has been documented in the studies by Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska & Kim, 2013). This could be attributable to distinctions in our operationalization and measurement of responsivity in comparison to Kochanska's. However, our finding is consistent with that of Webster-Stratton and Hammond (1998), who did not find a relation between positive parenting and compliance in their sample of low-income Head Start children. These authors suggest that positive parenting (e.g., warmth and responsivity) may facilitate the development of prosocial behaviors, but may not necessarily protect children against conduct problems such as noncompliance. The Acceptance subscale of the HOME may be more relevant to the parental behaviors that support compliance. As noted in the Kuczynski and Kochanska (1990) study, mothers who had more compliant children tended to avoid reactive and restrictive behaviors with their children. The HOME acceptance subscale, used to measure parental acceptance in our study, evaluates parents' ability to accept and negotiate children's behaviors rather than respond immediately with harsh reprisal. Thus, our finding that parental acceptance toward children influenced children's compliance behaviors is consistent with previous work that suggests that acceptance is critical to offering children repeated positive and successful social negotiations which facilitate the development of compliance behaviors. Further, this finding supports the suggestion in the foster care literature that foster parents who demonstrate more accepting parenting have children with fewer behavioral problems (Orme & Buehler, 2001). It is important to note that parental acceptance toward children did not influence child internalization behaviors in the current study. Although we did not find an association between duration of foster care placement and child compliance and internalization, it may be that foster children have not had the early attachment experiences that allow them to have an “internal working model” of their caregivers (Thompson, 2008), which may support their internalization of parental standards (i.e., show compliant behavior when the parent is not present). Further, these children may have experienced the punitive and power-assertive parenting strategies that have been documented among maltreating and non-maltreating parents of low socioeconomic backgrounds (Koenig et al., 2000), that diminish children's capacity for internalization. It is also important to underscore the counterintuitive parenting findings in the Koenig et al. study, such as the negative relation between internalization and the maternal verbalizations and behaviors associated with high internalization in middle-class, typically developing children. This constellation of findings suggest that the parenting provided by foster caregivers, subsequent to the maltreatment, may have less of an impact on children's internalization of parental standards. There is a robust literature on the import of parental behaviors and the home environment for children's development. Less empirical attention has been devoted to the unique dynamics of foster families, and how these factors may attenuate preschool children's outcomes. Jones Harden and Whittaker (2011) examined the HOME scale in the

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, and documented that emotional support in the home predicted decreased behavioral problems and increased social skills. The current study is consistent with this finding which links positive foster family processes to the developmental outcomes of children in the child welfare system. To our knowledge, this is the only study that has examined the contribution of family processes to both compliance and internalization in preschool foster children. Overall, the findings from the current study suggest that young maltreated children in foster care may exhibit levels of compliance comparable to their counterparts who are not maltreated and not in foster care. However, they show lower capacities for internalization of parental standards than what would be expected based on research on normative and other high-risk populations. Although this is a small, exploratory study and we have to exercise caution regarding its implications, the findings herein are informative for practice with respect to young maltreated children and their foster parents. For example, young foster children would benefit from interventions to promote their prosocial behavior writ large, specifically their internalization of adult standards, such as interventions that capitalize on positive behavioral supports in the context of the classroom and home (Fisher, Gunnar, Dozier, Bruce, & Pears, 2006; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). Further, these findings can inform the orientation and pre-service training provided to foster parents. Orientation and pre-service training programs should prepare foster parents for the challenges they may encounter relative to young foster children's lower likelihood of adhering to adult standards, particularly when adults are not present, and provide them with strategies for understanding and coping with these behaviors. Additionally, the findings from this study suggest that parental warmth and responsiveness do not relate to young foster children's compliance or internalization, but parental acceptance of children's behaviors (e.g., negotiation rather than harsh reprisal) does relate to their compliance. Thus, foster parent pre- and in-service training, as well as more targeted, individualized parent coaching in the foster parents' home, could focus on enhancing their acceptance of their children, as well as helping them to directly facilitate their children's compliance with their standards through praise, reasoning, and naturally reinforcing consequences (Owen, Slep, & Heyman, 2012). Although this study contributes to the sparse literature on parenting contributors to compliance and internalization among maltreated foster children, there are several limitations of this study which should be acknowledged. First, a major limitation of this study is the lack of a comparison group of non-maltreated preschool children and/or maltreated children who are not in foster care. However, we opted to focus on a within-group examination to fill the gap in the literature on developmental and family processes in this unique population of maltreated, preschool foster children. Future research should persist in examining core developmental processes in young foster children, and the parental and environmental factors that promote or hinder them. Although this study was a preliminary step in the achievement of this goal, future studies should have a larger sample size, include a more representative child population (e.g., Latino children), and examine multiple family types (e.g., kin vs. non-kinship foster parents, two- vs. single-parent foster families). Additionally, research should incorporate other foster family factors that may impact child compliance and internalization, such as parenting attitudes and father involvement, as well as other influential parental behaviors including quality of verbal and physical control during parent–child interactions. Another limitation of this study was that we concurrently examined child and family processes. Longitudinal research would strengthen the investigation of the relation between child and family processes, such that the influence of maltreating parent and foster parent and home variables over time on the development of compliance and internalization could be examined. Such a longitudinal approach would allow for

109

disentangling the effects of the different caregiving environments that foster children experience, such as birth parents, relatives, and foster parents. Further, there is the potential of a bidirectional influence on parenting and compliance and internalization that more parenting variables and longitudinal data may address. A more careful examination of specific aspects of children's maltreatment and foster care experiences, as well as their experience with their biological families, could also contribute to this line of research. Finally, the literature would benefit from studies which link compliance and internalization with other social developmental processes including morality, peer relationships, and social-cognition. In conclusion, child compliance and internalization of parental standards are important core developmental processes that represent children's understanding of social cues and expectations for interacting in their own social environment. Compliance and internalization are necessary for children's integration of family and community standards as they begin to explore the world around them and adapt to environmental demands. Early compliance and internalization are often indicative of behavioral outcomes in later childhood and adolescence (Friedman et al., 2011). Therefore, it is critically important that we understand how these developmental processes operate in maltreated children, whether they reside with their birth or foster parents, so they are not left vulnerable to future maladaptive socio-cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes. As Cicchetti (2007) asserts, it is critical that research and interventions address core developmental processes in young children who experience maltreatment. Knowledge about the mechanisms for promoting compliance and internalization in maltreated children could inform interventions for foster parents. Such interventions could be designed to increase foster parent capacity to respond to the children in their care in developmentally-appropriate and targeted ways to enhance specific developmental processes, such as compliance and internalization. Ultimately, such interventions could facilitate the overall well-being of maltreated children in foster care, which is a critical goal of the child welfare system (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Acknowledgements This project was funded by a grant from the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Achenbach Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Ackerman, J. P., & Dozier, M. (2005). The influence of foster parent investment on children's representations of self and attachment figures. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 507–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.06.003. Administration for Children and Families (2009). NSCAW Research Brief No. 16: A summary of NSCAW findings. Washington, DC: Author. Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: III. The origins of individual differences in infant–mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development, 55, 718–728. Blacher, J. (Ed.). (1994). When there's no place like home: Options for children living apart from their natural families. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing. Bor, W., & Sanders, M. R. (2004). Correlates of self-reported coercive parenting of preschool-aged children at high risk for the development of conduct problems. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 738–745. Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & García Coll, C. (2001). The home environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Development, 72, 1868–1886. Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for the measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Campbell, S. B. (2002). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental issues (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Campbell, S. B. (2006). Maladjustment in preschool children: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 358–378). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

110

B.J. Harden et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 55 (2015) 103–110

Casanueva, C., Dozier, M., Tueller, S., Dolan, M., Smith, K., Webb, M. B., et al. (2013). Caregiver instability and early life changes among infants reported to the child welfare system. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38(3), 498–509. Chamberlain, P., & Smith, D. (2003). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: The Oregon multidimensional treatment foster care model. In A. Kazdin, & J. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 282–300). New York: Guilford. Cheung, C., Goodman, D., Leckie, G., & Jenkins, J. M. (2011). Understanding contextual effects on externalizing behaviors in children in out-of-home care: Influence of workers and foster families. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2050–2060. Cicchetti, D. (2007). Intervention and policy implications of research on neurobiologicalfunctioning in maltreated children. In J. L. Aber, S. J. Bishop-Josef, S. M. Jones, K. T. McLearn, & D. A. Phillips (Eds.), Child development and social policy: Knowledge for action (pp. 167–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Crittenden, P., & DiLalla, D. (1988). Compulsive compliance: The development of an inhibitory coping strategy in infancy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 16, 585–599. Crockenberg, S. (1987). Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of toddlers by adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58, 964–975. Crockenberg, S., & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in 2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of child defiance, compliance, and self-assertion. Developmental Psychology, 26, 961–971. Dozier, M., Stoval, K., Albus, K., & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72(5), 1467–1477. Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant–mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753–771. Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Erickson, M. (1983). The developmental consequence of different patterns of maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 459–469. Emde, R. N., Biringen, Z., Clyman, R. B., & Oppenheim, D. (1991). The moral self of infancy: Affective core and procedural knowledge. Developmental Review, 11, 251–270. Farmer, E. (2009). How do placements in kinship care compare with those in non-kin foster care: Placement patterns, progress and outcomes? Child & Family Social Work, 14(3), 331–342. Fearon, P. R. M., & Belsky, J. (2011). Infant–mother attachment and the growth of externalizing problems across the primary school years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 782–791. Feldman, R., & Klein, P. S. (2003). Toddlers' self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. Developmental Psychology, 39, 680. Fisher, P., Gunnar, M., Dozier, M., Bruce, J., & Pears, K. (2006). Effects of therapeutic interventions for toster children on behavioral problems, caregiver attachment, and stress regulatory neural systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 215–225 (Resilience in Children). Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). Developmental trajectories in toddlers' self-restraint predict individual differences in executive functions 14 years later: A behavioral genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1410. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology, 2. (pp. 261–354). New York: Wiley. Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 281–313). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Jones Harden, B., & Klein, S. (2011). Infants and toddlers in child welfare: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1464–1468. Jones Harden, B., & Whittaker, J. (2011). The early home environment and developmental outcomes for young children in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1392–1403. Jones Harden, B., Winslow, M., Kendziora, K., Shahinfar, A., Rubin, K., Fox, N., et al. (2000). Externalizing problems in Head Start children: An ecological exploration. Early Education and Development, 11(3), 357–385. Karass, J., & Walden, T. (2005). Effects of nurturing and non-nurturing caregiving on child social initiatives: An experimental investigation of emotion as a mediator of social behavior. Social Development, 14(4), 685–700. Kochanska, G. (2002a). Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: A mediational model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 339. Kochanska, G. (2002b). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 191–195. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother–child mutual positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early intervention. Child Development, 66, 236–254. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Children's conscience and self‐regulation. Journal of Personality, 74, 1587–1618. Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Koenig, A. L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of preschoolers' conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization. Child Development, 1752–1769. Kochanska, G., & Kim, S. (2013). Difficult temperament moderates links between maternal responsiveness and children's compliance and behavior problems in low-income

families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(3), 323–332. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/jcpp.12002. Koenig, A. L., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2000). Child compliance/noncompliance and maternal contributors to internalization in maltreating and nonmaltreating dyads. Child Development, 71, 1018–1032. Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children's noncompliance strategies from toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 398–404. Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children's noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 799–806. Lawrence, C., Carlson, E., & Egeland, B. (2006). The impact of foster care on development. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 57–76. Londerville, S., & Main, M. (1981). Security of attachment, compliance, and maternal training methods in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 17, 289–299. Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017. Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-coursepersistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179–207. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Reseach Group (2001). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW); Local Child Welfare Agency Survey Report. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oldershaw, L., Walters, G. C., & Hall, D. K. (1986). Control strategies and noncompliance in abusive mother–child dyads: An observational study. Child Development, 57, 722–732. Orme, J. G., & Buehler, C. (2001). Foster family characteristics and behavioral and emotional problems of foster children: A narrative review. Family Relations, 50, 3–15. Owen, D., Slep, A., & Heyman, R. (2012). The effect of praise, positive nonverbal response, reprimand, and negative nonverbal response on child compliance: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 15, 364–385. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10567-0120-0. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Rhodes, K., Orme, J., & Buehler, C. (2001). A comparison of family foster parents who quit, consider quitting, and plan to continue fostering. Social Service Review, 75, 84–114. Rogosch, F., Cicchetti, D., & Aber, J. L. (1995). The role of child maltreatment in early deviations in cognitive and affective processing abilities and later peer relationship problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 591–609. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Theory and methods, 1. (pp. 618–655). New York: Wiley. Schindler, F., & Arkowitz, H. (1986). The assessment of mother–child interactions in physically abusive and nonabusive families. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 247–257. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055: National Academy Press. Stahmer, A., Hurlburt, M., Horwitz, S., Landsverk, J., Zhang, J., & Leslie, L. (2009). Associations between intensity of child welfare involvement and child development among young children in child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(9), 598–611. Stayton, D. J., Hogan, R., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1971). Infant obedience and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization reconsidered. Child Development, 42, 1057–1069. Thompson, R. (2008). Attachment-related mental representations: Introduction to the special issue. Attachment & Human Development, 10(4), 347–358. Trickett, P. K., & Kuczynski, L. (1986). Children's misbehaviors and parental discipline strategies in abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 22, 115–123. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012). Promoting social and emotional well-being for children and youth receiving child welfare services. ACYF-CB-IM-12-04. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Vanschoonlandt, F., Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., De Maeyer, S., & Robberechts, M. (2013). Parenting stress and parenting behavior among foster mothers of foster children with externalizing problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1742–1750. Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1998). Conduct problems and level of social competence in Head Start children: Prevalence, pervasiveness and associated risk factors. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 1, 101–124. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x. Whittaker, J., Jones Harden, B., See, H., Meisch, A., & Westbrook, T. (2011). Family risks and protective factors: Pathways to Early Head Start toddler's social–emotional functioning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 74–86.