Ethnic variances in socializing young children’s mastery motivation among White, African American, and Hispanic low-income families

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Ethnic variances in socializing young children’s mastery motivation among White, African American, and Hispanic low-income families Wen Wang a,∗,1 , Claire D. Vallotton b , Ryan P. Bowles c a b c

Michigan State University, 406 Human Ecology, 552 West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States Michigan State University, 2G Human Ecology, 552 West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States Michigan State University, 2E Human Ecology, 552 West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 January 2019 Received in revised form 30 August 2019 Accepted 28 December 2019 Keywords: Mastery motivation Ethnic variance Parenting Young children

a b s t r a c t Mastery motivation is an individual’s drive to master and influence the environment and overcome challenges. Family plays the most important role in fostering children’s mastery motivation development, starting from a young age. However, there is no unique way of socializing children’s mastery motivation. The current study focused on ethnic variations in the patterns of parents’ behaviors (autonomy supportiveness, cognitive stimulation, and intrusiveness) when children encounter challenges, among White, African American, and Hispanic low-income families. Using Latent profile analysis (LPA), the study indicated unique parenting styles in each ethnic groups. Especially, majority of African American and Hispanic parents’ response styles cannot be captured by Self-Determination Theory and empirical studies which based on white sample. Through comparing children’s persistence and frustration across groups within each ethnic group, African American and Hispanic groups have more than one effective parenting styles in supporting children’s mastery motivation. This study indicated the diversity in socializing young children’s mastery motivation, and informed future ethnic adaptive practices in supporting young children’s mastery motivation. © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction People have the psychological need, or developmental tendency, to seek novel stimulation, explore and learn about their environment, and master challenging skills or tasks; this is defined as intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) or mastery motivation (Barrett, Morgan, & Maslin-Cole, 1993; Morgan, MacTurk, & Hrncir, 1995). Mastery motivation development in early childhood predicts children’s concurrent (Berhenke, Miller, Brown, Seifer, & Dickstein, 2011; Turner & Johnson, 2003) and later academic skills (Bae, Hopkins, Gouze, & Lavigne, 2014), and social-emotional functioning (Bae et al., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although mastery motivation is seen as an instinctual drive, the environment, most crucially the family, influences the development of mastery motivation as children are encouraged and discouraged from pursuing mastery in both direct and indirect ways (Bae et al., 2014; Banerjee

& Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Turner & Johnson, 2003). The process of socializing mastery motivation may vary across ethnicities because, according to White, Nair, and Bradley (2018) adaptive culture framework, the process of child socialization is the outcome of both heritage culture and current environment. That is, different parenting approaches among ethnic groups are the adaptive responses to culturally determined child-rearing goals and practices (Coll & Pachter, 2002; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002), as well as social environments that differ between those of different ethnicities (such as segregation, discrimination, low quality of neighborhood, etc.). It is possible that in different ethnic groups, parents have different strategies and parenting styles which are related to children’s mastery motivation socialization. This paper aims to reveal how parenting styles that subsequently influence young children’s mastery motivation vary across ethnicities. 1.1. Mastery behaviors in early childhood

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W. Wang), [email protected] (C.D. Vallotton), [email protected] (R.P. Bowles). 1 The current address for Wen Wang is Arizona State University, 951 Cady Mall #144, Tempe, AZ, 85287, United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.12.012 0885-2006/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Children’s desire for competence results in mastery behaviors. Persistence is one of the most robust indexes for investigating children’s mastery motivation (Master, Dweck, Markman, & Walton, 2011), which, in early childhood, is often operationalized as a

330

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

child’s sustained attention or goal-directed behaviors on a task (e.g., Banerjee & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Martin, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). In addition, emotional feelings are an important aspect of mastery motivation, including positive emotional feelings (e.g., happiness, pride) during or after successful mastery attempts, and negative emotional experiences (e.g., anger, frustration, sadness) during or right after failed attempts (Barrett & Morgan, 1995). Persistence and emotional experience are closely related. In general, high persistence is positively related to positive emotional experience. For example, Oades-Sese, Matthews, and Lewis (2014) found that self-reported positive emotional experience in learning, such as pride and enjoyment, promotes students’ approaches to and persistence in challenges. Negative emotions, such as frustration, fear, or sadness, hinder children’s persistence in reaching a goal. For example, Burhans and Dweck (1995) have found that those preschoolers who tended to avoid challenges and chose not to persist in tasks were more likely to report negative feelings than those who were willing to persist in challenging tasks. Also, in research on helplessness, frustration is viewed as a reason for nonpersistence (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wolfson, Mumme, & Guskin, 1995). For example, Boyd (1982) hypothesized that the enduring feeling of frustration from a thwarted goal may lead people to give up on a task because they expect to be incapable of completing it. Also, high levels of frustration can be an indicator of low levels of effortful control; that is, a child who expresses intensive frustration or anger may have difficulties in regulating his emotions and attention, and therefore shows poor persistence in solving problems or finishing challenging tasks (Deater-Deckard, Petrill, & Thompson, 2007). Thus, to capture both instrumental and affective aspects of mastery motivation, the current study uses task-related frustration and persistence as two indicators of mastery motivation.

1.2. Parenting and mastery motivation According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a theory about the social-contextual conditions facilitating or hindering one’s internal motivations, socialization of children’s intrinsic motivation involves promoting the child’s feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Parenting influences child mastery motivation by enhancing or undermining these three feelings of children in the context of activities or learning. In the specific situations in which children deal with challenging tasks or solve problems, the influences of parents’ behaviors on children’s mastery behaviors can be understood through Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory posits that, during parent-child interactions, children internalize the meanings of parents’ language and symbols, integrating them into their own mental repertoire, developing both internal and external representations (that is, thought and language) (Vygotsky, 1986). In this way, parents’ responsive and encouraging messages about children’s efficacy in problem solving may be internalized by the child and become part of the child’s self-talk and inner speech in challenging situations. Thus, parents who are responsive to children’s initiations, support children’s autonomy, and guide children to find effective strategies of solving problems (i.e., parental cognitive stimulation) transmit beliefs to their children that the environment is controllable and there are ways to achieve success. In contrast, parental use of intrusive or harsh control, which subverts the child’s efforts and undermines their autonomy, may lead children to internalize the idea that they are not expected to make attempts, or would fail if they did. Thus, parents pass the culture of solving problems to their children as children internalize the implicit and explicit strategies and messages about their own competence and the controllability of the world embedded within parents’ behaviors and statements during challenging contexts.

Empirical studies have found that parental autonomy supportiveness, which refers to parental encouragement of children’s autonomous attempts and emotional support of children’s effort, and cognitive stimulation, which refers to parental provision of information and guidance in helping children with tasks and activities, are positively related to children’s intrinsic motivation and performance in learning activities. For example, observed parental encouragement of toddlers’ efforts and accomplishment positively predicted their later persistence in problem solving tasks (Kelley, Brownell, & Campbell, 2000) and their mastery motivation in learning in elementary school age (Gunderson et al., 2013). Also, through observing mother-child interaction with 3-year-old children who had developmental delays, Young and Hauser-Cram (2006) found that mothers’ emotional supportiveness (verbal or nonverbal soothing of children’s distress) when children learn a challenging skill was positively related to children’s persistence in problem solving tasks. Further, parents’ cognitive stimulation (that is, providing information and strategies, simulating children’s play with objects, and directing children’s attention) at 6 months old was not only positively related to infants’ concurrent problem-solving performance (Yarrow et al., 1984), but also positively associated with later persistence at one year old (Banerjee & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007). Finally, observed parental scaffolding behavior when children were 24 months old was positively associated with children’s persistence in challenging tasks at 36 months (Prendergast & MacPhee, 2018). Thus, both autonomy supportiveness (supporting the child’s own initiations) and cognitive stimulation (guiding or contributing to the child’s activities) are ways that parents support early mastery motivation. However, findings about the relation between parental intrusive behaviors and children’s mastery motivation are mixed. Some studies have found that parental intrusiveness, that is, parental controlling behaviors without considering children’s needs and abilities, are associated with children’s poor persistence and more negative affect across different ages throughout childhood. For example, toddlers who experience high levels of maternal control in joint problem-solving tasks express more negative emotions (Badridze, 2003), and those who experience harsh maternal control in infancy are more likely to withdraw from challenges and feel hopeless after failure when they are 5 years old (Marsland, 2005). The negative effects of maternal intrusiveness on children’s mastery performance in challenging tasks was also found with children in elementary school (Ng, Kenney-Benson, & Pomerantz, 2004). However, through observing three-year-old children’s persistence in challenging tasks, other studies found null results when testing the relationship between parents’ harsh control and children’s mastery motivations (MacPhee, Prendergast, Albrecht, Walker, & Miller-Heyl, 2018; Prendergast & MacPhee, 2018). Thus, the role of parental intrusiveness in socializing mastery motivation is uncertain. 1.3. Ethnic variances in parenting related to mastery motivation Few studies have investigated how parent-child interaction varies across ethnicities in the context of solving challenging tasks, but cross-ethnic studies in other tasks of parenting and child development reveal both ethnic similarities and differences in parenting. Specifically, when comparing three ethnic groups within the U.S. (White, African American, and Hispanic families) on parental supportiveness and control during play, studies have found that a supportive parenting style, which refers to a combination of parental sensitivity, responsiveness, positive regard, and cognitive stimulation of children, is dominant across all groups (Brady-Smith et al., 2013). And, as children gain more autonomy, parental intrusiveness decreases across all groups (Ispa et al., 2013). However, there is also evidence of ethnic differences in parenting

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

across these same groups. For example, compared with White parents, African American parents showed a higher level of control (Ispa et al., 2004) and physical punishment (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002), which is consistent with differences in authoritarian attitudes (LeCuyer, Swanson, Cole, & Kitzman, 2011), while Hispanic parents show more intrusive behaviors with their infants (Ispa et al., 2004; Luo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2016). Minority parents’ high levels of intrusiveness might be explained as the adaptive outcomes of the ethnicity-related cultural values and their current environments. Compared to African American and White families (which espouse cultural values of independence), Hispanic families are more inclined to a collectivist or interdependent orientation, which emphasizes interpersonal relatedness and filial duty (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Luo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2016). For example, in Hispanic families, “familismo” (familism) is an important and unique cultural value which emphasize the closeness, cohesiveness, and cooperativeness among family members (Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002). Studies have shown that, compared to White parents, Latino parents not only provide more cuddling and comfort to fussy children (see Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006), but also provide more physical guidance in daily caregiving (Carlson & Harwood, 2003) and more directive behaviors during play with young children (Ispa et al., 2004; Luo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2016). In addition to culture, García Coll et al. (1996) integrative model pointed out that the current environment, such as discrimination, segregation, and neighborhood, also shapes family interactions and subsequently child development. Parents who are part of ethnic minorities usually experience more economic hardship and discrimination than White families, which are main risk factors for child development. African American and Hispanic parents may attempt to prepare their children for difficulties in the future through the use of stricter parenting styles (Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey, 1994). Also, ethnic minority families more likely live in poor urban neighborhoods which have higher rates of crime (Huston, McLoyd, & Coll, 1994). To protect their children from danger, parents who lives in more dangerous neighborhoods tend to use more harsh and controlling parenting strategies; however, parents’ high levels of intrusiveness are often combined with warmth to be a reflection of the parent’s care for the child (White, Zeiders, Gonzales, Tein, & Roosa, 2013). Therefore, high levels of control are seen as an adaptive response to contextual factors, such as the experience of racial discrimination and other dangers faced more by African American families than by others, making control a necessary protection for children in these contexts (LeCuyer et al., 2011; Moore & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). All parenting strategies can be seen as adaptive in some way, but their functions vary in different groups of families. Control in African American and Hispanic families can be necessary and protective, but may be seen as unnecessarily harsh in European American families (Tamis-Lemonda, Briggs, McClowry, & Snow, 2009). Because of the ethnically specific meanings of certain parenting behaviors, comparing the mean level differences of each parenting behavior among ethnic groups cannot reveal the unique and adaptive meaning of parenting behaviors for each ethnic group. Therefore, the current study combined multiple dimensions of parenting behaviors to investigate the unique parenting styles that support children during challenging tasks in three ethnic groups. 1.4. Ethnic-related unique parenting styles With the combined influences from families’ traditional culture and exposure to the environment, parents may have unique parenting styles. For example, in the dominant White culture, parenting styles were usually classified into authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful styles (Baumrind, 1971, 1991). However,

331

Domènech Rodriguez, Donovick, and Crowley (2009) found that this classification was not able to describe Latino parent-child interaction. Specifically, they found the majority of Latino parents can be explained by a unique parenting style that they called “protective parenting,” which referred to parents who were high on both warmth and control, but low on autonomy granting. Further, in line with the value of familism, Hispanic parents emphasize both high parental involvement and high parental monitoring (Ayón, Williams, Marsiglia, Ayers, & Kiehne, 2015; Taylor, Conger, Robins, & Widaman, 2015), which is rarely seen in White families. Likewise, with African American families, empirical studies also found parental control was correlated with warmth (Ispa et al., 2004), which is not typically true of European-American parents. Moore and Brooks-Gunn (2002) named this unique African American parenting style as “tough-love,” which includes aspects of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting. Thus, as parents adapt their parenting styles to their cultural and environmental contexts, different profiles of behaviors are likely to result across ethnic groups. 1.5. Current study Existing literature about socializing children’s mastery motivation has typically overlooked the ethnic variances in associated parenting behaviors and attitudes. Studies have either focused on highly homogeneous samples, comprised of predominantly middle-income White families (e.g., Lee, 2014; Sparks, Hunter, Backman, Morgan, & Ross, 2012; Wang, Morgan, & Biringen, 2014), or used heterogeneous samples which might represent a broader population, but have nevertheless analyzed the overall effects of maternal behaviors on children’s outcomes by lumping all ethnic and SES groups together (e.g., Kelley et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2013; Mokrova, O’Brien, Calkins, Leerkes, & Marcovitch, 2012). The current study aims to investigate cultural variations in mastery-related parenting, and examine whether the framework provided by SDT to understand socialization of mastery motivation is relevant beyond White families. Based on previous empirical studies and theories in children’s mastery motivation, parental autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation are usually viewed as the opposites of parental control or intrusiveness. However, in ethnic minority groups, parental control may not be negatively correlated with parental warmth and responsiveness; positive correlations between parental warmth and control have been found in both African American and Hispanic families (Ispa et al., 2004). It is possible that there are unique parenting styles in ethnic minority groups which cannot be captured by variable-oriented approaches. Variable-oriented approaches focus on each parenting behavior, rather than examining how parenting behaviors relate to one another in ways that may indicate a unique parenting style; thus, variable-oriented approaches cannot address how parents’ responses as a whole influence children’s performance in a task. In order to understand how parents of different ethnic groups adapt their parenting to their contexts in order to support their child’s development, it is necessary to understand how parenting behaviors cluster together to define a style of parental response to children during challenges; this can be accomplished through a person-oriented approach. Therefore, we examine whether the three ethnic groups share the same typology of parental response styles related to socializing children’s mastery motivation, and whether there are dominant ethnic-specific styles. Due to the limited evidence in this field, we do not have specific hypothesis for this research question. However, based on studies of ethnic variance in parenting and family processes in other contexts (e.g., during play), we hypothesize that African American and Hispanic parents may share more commonal-

332

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

ities in their response styles during challenging tasks, and may have less in common with the styles seen in White families. Finally, we investigate whether and how these parenting styles are related to children’s mastery behaviors (i.e., child persistence and expression of frustration in challenging tasks). 2. Method 2.1. Participants The sample was drawn from the public use dataset for the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation (EHSRE) study. Since all main outcomes and predictors for the current study were generated from videotaped data of a series of puzzle game tasks when children were three years old, the current study was limited to families who completed the puzzle game tasks. Thus, the sample included 1,558 families (Table 1). In the current sample, African-American families were more likely to live in severe poverty (household income less than 33% of federal poverty threshold) (␹2 (6) = 45.70, p < 0.001), and Hispanic mothers were less likely to have completed a high school education than European and African-American mothers (␹2 (4) = 135.50, p < 0.001). We addressed these confounds in the analysis section below. 2.2. Procedures When the child was approximately 14 months, evaluators interviewed parents about demographic information for the family, and observed children’s and parents’ engagement in play. At the 36-month wave, evaluators videotaped child-parent dyads during puzzle games. During this game, the child was asked to solve up to three puzzles of increasing difficulties in 6−7 min, interacting with each puzzle for up to 4 min. If the child took more than 4 min on one puzzle, the interviewer would ask the child to move on to the next puzzle. The parent was instructed to let the child work on puzzles by himself/herself, and then give the child help any time the parent thought the child needed support. The parent was informed to feel free to talk with the child and do what the parent would normally do (EHSRE codebook). All the videos were coded later by trained coders (see EHS project Final Technical Report Appendixes, 2002). 2.3. Measures Two indicators of child mastery behaviors (persistence and frustration) and three parent behaviors (autonomy supportiveness, cognitive stimulation, and intrusiveness) were coded globally using scales ranging from 1 = very low to 7 = very high. The average intercoder agreement within one point was 93 percent, with a range of 88–100 percent, across all the puzzle game coders (EHS project Final Technical Report Appendixes, 2002, in Appendix C). Child and parent behaviors in the puzzle game task were measured and coded similarly to those in free-play. The evidence of validity and reliability for the same measurement of parents’ and children’s behaviors were provided in previous studies using data from a free-play task (Ispa et al., 2004); the task and resulting data are widely used in previous studies (e.g., Brady-Smith et al., 2013; Ispa et al., 2013; Fuligni et al., 2013; Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). 2.3.1. Child behaviors Child persistence was measured as the degree to which the child remained goal-oriented, focused (showed sustained attention), adjusted their strategies, and motivated toward the puzzle throughout the session in face of the challenge and boredom, regardless of whether the child ultimately solved the puzzle or whether they showed frustration on the task (Bradly-Smith, Ryan, Berlin, Brooks-Gunn, & Fuligni, 2001). Previous research showed

that young children’s persistence was related to later academic achievement. If the measure of child persistence has cross-ethnic validity, we expected that, in the three ethnic groups, child persistence was related to future academic achievement in the same way. Therefore, we tested the correlations between child persistence and children’s academic achievement at preK, which was measured as Woodcock-Johnson problem solving and letter-word identification (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). We found that, as we expected, child persistence was significantly moderately related to both problem solving and letter-word identification for all three ethnic groups (rs range from 0.13 to 0.29), which means child persistence presented similar predict validity for all three cultures. Child frustration was measured as the degree to which the child showed frustration and anger towards the task, from subtle indicators, such as negative facial expression, pushing puzzle pieces away, to the intense indicators, such as throwing a temper tantrum and complaining the puzzle is too hard or not fun (Bradly-Smith et al., 2001, page 18). 2.3.2. Parental behaviors Autonomy supportiveness is the extent to which a parent is “child-centered”, or parents’ respect of their child’s autonomous attempts. Indicators of high autonomy supportiveness include allowing children to work autonomously, positive feedback on the child’s efforts, encouraging the child to take into consideration the intrinsic values of the task (e.g., “This puzzle looks so fun! I bet you’ll love doing this”), and emotional supportiveness (Bradly-Smith et al., 2001). Cognitive stimulation is the extent parents are sensitive to a child’s needs and ability, and adjust their scaffolding accordingly, in order to bring a child above their current understanding and ability. Indicators of high cognitive stimulation include diverse strategies of assistance, informative assistance (e.g., “Where do the feet go, at the bottom or at the top?”), breaking down the steps, presenting instructions logically, and breaking down the instruments into understandable segments (Bradly-Smith et al., 2001). Intrusiveness was coded as the degree to which the parent controls the child without being sensitive and respecting the child’s autonomous efforts to solve the puzzle. Indicators of intrusive behaviors include persisting with an action or instructions that does not interest the child, providing unnecessary instruction, taking the toy away when the child is still interested in it, not allowing the child to make choices or handle the puzzles, and physically intrusive behaviors (e.g., poking the child) (Bradly-Smith et al., 2001). 2.3.3. Covariates Family income, parental education, and child sex were covariates of children’s outcomes. The demographic information was obtained through parental interview during the first wave of the study (14 months old). The number of family risk factors was also considered as a covariate. During 14 months parental interview, parents reported on 5 risk factors (1 = yes; 0 = no): (a) whether the child’s birth mom was under 20 years old; (b) whether the parent was not employed/schooled; (c) whether the parent was not married or cohabiting; (d) whether the family was not receiving welfare; (e) whether the parent dropped off from high school. The total number of risk factors was calculated. 3. Analysis and Results 3.1. Preliminary analysis Descriptive statistics for all variables and matrix of correlations were displayed in Table 2. Combining across samples, parental autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation positively correlated with child persistence and frustration; and

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

333

Table 1 Demographic Information for Families Who Completed Puzzle Game Tasks (percentage)

Total number Child is male Maternal education <12th grade 12th grade or GED >12th grade Missing Poverty Income <33% of poverty level 33–67% of poverty level 67–99% of poverty level 100% or above of poverty level Missing

European-American

African- American

Hispanic-American

Overall sample

636 306 (48.1%)

515 257 (49.9%)

407 222 (54.6%)

1,558 785 (50.4%)

205 (32.2%) 234 (36.8%) 189 (29.7%) 8 (1.3%)

226 (43.9%) 145 (28.2%) 128 (24.9%) 16 (3.1%)

274 (67.3%) 62 (15.2%) 56 (13.8%) 15 (3.7%)

705 (45.3%) 441 (28.3%) 373 (23.9%) 39 (2.5%)

127 (20.0%) 178 (28.0%) 178 (28.0%) 81 (12.7%) 72 (11.3%)

150 (29.1%) 113 (21.9%) 72 (14.0%) 53 (10.3%) 127 (24.7%)

73 (17.9%) 108 (26.5%) 111 (27.3%) 48 (11.8%) 67 (16.5%)

350 (62.7%) 399 (25.6%) 361 (23.2%) 182 (11.7%) 266 (17.1%)

Note. The percentages for European-, African-, and Hispanic-American groups are the percentage within each ethnic group.

Table 2 Descriptive Results and Bivariate Pearson Correlation of Main Variables Main variables

1

1. Child persistence 2. Child frustration 3. Parental autonomy supportiveness 4. Parental cognitive stimulation 5. Parental intrusiveness Overall N Mean SD

– −0.21*** 0.25*** 0.27*** −0.20*** 1,544 4.54 1.16

2 – 0.08** 0.02 −0.13*** 1,552 2.68 1.34

3

– 0.59*** −0.46*** 1,557 4.46 1.3

4

– −0.27*** 1,556 3.54 1.18

5

– 1,555 2.68 1.27

EA Mean (SD)

AA Mean (SD)

HA Mean (SD)

4.80 (1.17) 2.88 (1.36) 4.94 (1.21) 3.91 (1.25) 2.33 (1.14)

4.29 (1.18) 2.47 (1.31) 4.04 (1.33) 3.23 (1.11) 3.07 (1.34)

4.46 (1.04) 2.64 (1.31) 4.23 (1.15) 3.36 (1.00) 2.75 (1.21)

Note. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

parental intrusiveness was negatively correlated with both child’s persistence and child’s frustration.

3.2. Ethnic variations in parenting styles supporting children’s mastery motivation A series of Latent profile analysis (LPA) models were run with z-scores centered for each ethnic group, identifying different combinations of three parenting behaviors (autonomy supportiveness, cognitive stimulation, and intrusiveness) for each ethnic group. The models were run from one class (under the hypothesis that there is only one class of individuals who share one pattern of parental behavior combinations) to six classes (under the hypothesis that there are six classes of individuals reflecting six different parenting styles) in Mplus (version 8.1) (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Multiple statistical indices were calculated to determine the best fitting model for the current dataset. The lower values of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC) indicate better fitness for the model. The higher values of entropy (ranging from zero to one) indicate stronger separation and more accurate classification. The Lo-Mendell-Rubin (LMR) adjusted likelihood ratio test was used to evaluate whether the specified model fits better than a model with one less class (p value is less than 0.05). According to the fit indices presented in Table 3 as well as the theoretical reasons, the two-class model fit best for European American group, and four-class model fit best for African American and Hispanic groups. In White families, 373 families (59 % of White sample) had the highest probability of falling in class 1, and 263 families (41%) were in class 2 (Table 4). On average, in class 1, White parents had relatively high levels of autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation and lower levels of intrusiveness. White parents in the second class had relatively lower levels autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, as well as higher levels of intrusiveness (Fig. 1). Therefore, the first class were named as supportive style; and second class were named as directive style.

In the analysis of the African American families, 514 families were classified into 4 groups representing different parenting styles (Table 3). Two hundred and seventy-eight families (54% of African American sample) had the highest probability of falling in class 1 (moderately supportive style), in which parents had moderate autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation and relatively low intrusiveness. Seventy-one families (14%) had the highest probability of falling in class 2 (restrained style), which had low levels of all three parental behaviors. Sixty-eight families (13%) were in class 3 (very supportive style), which had very high levels of autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, and a very low level of intrusiveness. Last, 97 families (19%) were in class 4 (directive style), which had very low levels of autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, and a very high level of intrusiveness (Table 4). Four hundred and seven (407) Hispanic families were classified into 4 groups (Table 3). One hundred and seventy-eight families (44% of the Hispanic sample) had the highest probability of falling into class 1 (engaged style); parents in this group showed moderate levels of autonomy supportiveness, cognitive stimulation, and intrusiveness. Class 2 were labeled the restrained style (with 85 Hispanic families, 21% of the sample), which had relatively low levels of both cognitive stimulation and intrusiveness, and a moderate level of autonomy supportiveness. Class 3 were the very supportive style (113 families, 28% of the sample), which had high levels of autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, and a relatively low level of intrusiveness. Only 31 families (7%) fell into class 4 (very directive style), which had low levels of autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation, and a high level of intrusiveness (Table 4).

4. Child outcomes among different classes within each ethnic group One-way ANCOVA was used to compare the means of child persistence and frustration among different parenting styles within each ethnic group, with covariates of parents’ income, education, family risk factors, and child sex (Fig. 1). In the White sample, chil-

334

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

Table 3 Comparison of Model Fit for Different Profile Solutions for Parenting Factors Profile solutions

White

African American

Hispanic

2 5124.74 5169.29 5137.54 0.68 0 4142.13 4184.56 4152.81 0.70 0 3353.39 3393.47 3361.74 0.62 0

1 5417.72 5444.45 5425.40 – – 4382.04 4407.49 4388.45 – – 3474.08 3498.13 3479.09 – –

AIC BIC Adj. BIC Entropy LMR p value AIC BIC Adj. BIC Entropy LMR p value AIC BIC Adj. BIC Entropy LMR p value

3 5018.30 5080.67 5036.22 0.74 0.27 4091.06 4150.45 4106.01 0.698 0.006 3293.71 3349.84 3305.41 0.73 0.001

4 4970.23 5050.43 4993.28 0.73 0.04 4034.34 4110.70 4053.57 0.73 0.001 3248.77 3320.93 3263.82 0.76 0.01

5 4944.07 5042.09 4972.24 0.68 0.09 4005.04 4098.37 4028.53 0.69 0.28 3238.90 3327.10 3257.29 0.69 0.42

Table 4 The Profiles of Parenting Styles and Children’s Outcomes in the Context of Children’s Challenging Tasks for Each Ethnic Group White

% of profile Z-score Autonomy supportiveness Cognitive stimulation Intrusiveness Child persistence Child frustration Raw score Autonomy supportiveness Cognitive stimulation Intrusiveness Child persistence Child frustration

African American

Hispanic

Supp.

Direct.

ModSupp.

Restr.

VerySupp.

Direct.

Involv.

Restr.

VerySupp.

VeryDirec.

61

39

54

13

12

19

44

21

28

7

0.60 0.53 −0.32 0.21 0.02

−0.86 −0.76 0.45 −0.30 −0.02

0.36 0.13 −0.22 0.10 0.00

−1.03 −0.95 −0.53 −0.26 0.17

1.15 1.50 −0.65 0.26 0.11

−1.00 −0.67 1.40 −0.30 −0.22

−0.24 −0.04 0.49 0.03 −0.06

−0.41 −0.72 −0.88 −0.18 0.19

1.07 0.81 −0.67 0.20 0.00

−1.30 −0.65 1.98 −0.41 −0.18

5.67 4.57 1.97 5.05 2.90

3.91 2.97 2.84 4.45 2.85

4.52 3.37 2.82 4.41 2.47

2.67 2.17 2.46 3.98 2.69

5.57 4.89 2.33 4.60 2.61

2.71 2.49 4.67 3.94 2.18

3.96 3.33 3.34 4.49 2.58

3.76 2.64 1.69 4.28 2.89

5.46 4.17 1.94 4.67 2.65

2.73 2.71 5.15 4.03 2.42

Note. Supp. = Supportive style; Direct. = Directive style; ModSupp. = Moderately supportive style; Restr. = Restrained style; VerySupp. = Very supportive style; Involv. = Involved style; VeryDirec. = Very directive style.

dren of parents with a supportive style showed significant higher levels of persistence in challenging tasks than children with parents of a directive style (F = 29.05, p < 0.001), after adjusting for covariates. Child frustration did not vary between the groups of parents with supportive versus directive styles (F = 0.24, p = 0.63). In the African American group, both child persistence (F = 5.06, p = 0.002) and child frustration (F = 2.93, p = 0.03) were different among the four groups. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests showed that children of parents with a very supportive style had higher levels of persistence in challenging tasks than children with parents who had either a restrained style or a very directive style. There were no differences between the moderate supportive and other styles in child persistence; similarly, there were no differences between the restrained and very directive styles in child persistence. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests also showed that children whose parents had a restrained style marginally show more frustration in challenging tasks than those with a very directive style (p = 0.07). For Hispanic families, one-way ANCOVA results showed that child persistence was different among the four groups (F = 4.22, p = 0.01). There was no evidence of differences in child frustration (F = 1.926, p = 0.125). Post-hoc Bonferroni tests showed that children with very supportive parents showed higher levels of persistence in challenging tasks than children with restrained or very directive parents; children whose parents reflected the engaged style showed more persistence than children whose parents had a very directive style, but all of these results were marginal in post-hoc tests.

5. Discussion Although Self Determination Theory (SDT) pointed out that the development of mastery motivation is shaped by the environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000), few studies have examined how parents socialize their children’s mastery motivation in different ethnic group, which may reflect families’ expressions of cultural values as they adapt to their current environments. The current study provides new evidence about how parents socialize their children’s mastery motivation in different ethnic groups in the U.S., through investigating ethnic variances in the forms and functions of parenting styles in supporting young children’s mastery motivation. Using LPA in each ethnic group, this paper revealed ethnic-related parenting styles in the context of challenging tasks, which was related to different children’s mastery motivation behaviors in each group. 5.1. Ethnic specific parenting styles in supporting children’s mastery motivation African American and Hispanic parents showed unique parenting styles in the context of children’s challenging tasks that were not seen in the White families. For example, about 44% Hispanic parents reflected an engaged style in which parents moderately supported children’s autonomous attempts, and provided moderate intrusiveness at the same time. This result was consistent with previous studies on Hispanic parenting styles, that is, parental warmth/responsiveness and control/intrusiveness were both high in Hispanic parenting during children’s play (Ayón et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2015), which were seen as two opposite (negatively

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

335

ing style in African American group. Although parents in moderate supportive group showed relatively higher levels of intrusiveness and lower levels of the other two behaviors compared to the very supportive parents, there were no differences in child persistence and frustration between these two groups. Another unique parenting style, which was revealed in both minority groups, was the restrained style. That is, parents showed low levels of all three behaviors, without either providing any supports for nor intervening in children’s problem solving attempts. This style was not found in the European American group. It is possible that parents in the restrained group hold different beliefs about how to support children’s mastery motivation. For example, these parents may believe it is important to let children finish this challenge by themselves and parents should not get involved in it or engage with their children. Future studies are needed to investigate parents’ beliefs about their roles in supporting children’s problem-solving and ultimately their mastery motivation. In sum, the traditional way of categorizing strategies to support children’s mastery motivation (supportive versus directive, according to SDT theory) cannot adequately capture the styles of African American and Hispanic families. The majorities of the African American and Hispanic parents showed styles different from those found in European American families, and these unique styles were effective in supporting children’s mastery motivation (the engaged style for Hispanic parents and the moderate supportive style for the African American parents). Therefore, it is important for both researchers and practitioners to consider the diversity of minority parents’ effective strategies for shaping children’s mastery motivation to avoid unnecessary judgements that may result in misguidance of families. 5.2. Ethnicity specific meanings of intrusiveness in African American families

Fig. 1. Parenting styles and children’s outcomes for each ethnic group. (a) White families. (b) African American families. (c) Hispanic families.

correlated) parenting indicators in White families. Comparing children’s outcomes between the groups of parents with engaged and very supportive styles within Hispanic families, we found that children showed similar levels of persistence in challenging tasks, which might indicate that the engaged style is a unique but effective parenting style in shaping children mastery motivation for Hispanic families. Further, in contrast with White parents’ singular supportive parenting style, African American parents showed two types of supportive parenting styles in shaping their children’s mastery motivation, i.e., moderate supportive and very supportive styles. African American parents in very supportive group were similar to White parents in supportive style in terms of raw scores of these parental behaviors. However, this is not the only effective parent-

In African American families, there were no differences in child persistence between groups with a very directive style and those with a restrained style. Both those with a very directive style and with a restrained style had very low levels of parents’ autonomy supportive behaviors and cognitive stimulation. The major difference between these two groups was the level of parents’ intrusiveness; the very directive group had very high levels of intrusiveness (about 1.5 SD above the mean), but the intrusiveness in restrained group was very low (0.5 SD below the mean). However, children of parents who had a very directive style did not present significant differences in their persistence compared with children whose parents had a restrained style. This result is consistent with previous studies which found parental control in African American families does not necessarily have negative effects on children’s development (e.g., Ispa et al., 2004; LeCuyer et al., 2011). For example, Ispa et al. (2004) found no relations between parent intrusiveness in free-play and children’s engagement in African American parent-child dyads, which might indicated ethnic specific meanings of parental intrusiveness. One possible explanation of the results is that intrusiveness means different things in different ethnic groups, and also implicated future methods of examining parental behaviors, especially parental intrusiveness. Parental control is a general concept and different aspects of it could be measured to capture more cultural nuance, such as non-punitive control and punitive control (Halgunseth et al., 2006). Also, the form of parental control varies according to children’s ages. For infants, toddlers, and young children, parental control is usually studied as parental protection, physical guidance, directing and modeling; for older children and adolescents, parental monitoring, psychological control, and family rules are usually examined (Halgunseth et al., 2006). In the current study, in the setting of puzzle tasks with 3-year-olds, parental intrusiveness was mainly non-punitive control, which is defined as

336

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337

parents’ physically or verbally influencing children without being sensitive and respecting the child’s independent efforts to solve the puzzle, but still involved several sub-concepts of parental control, such as modeling, directing, physical guidance, which need to be specified in the future studies. It could be that these specific behaviors involved in parental intrusiveness were somewhat different in different cultures, but that our unitary rating of intrusiveness did not allow for that distinction. In addition, parental intrusiveness was measured through the same group of indicators for all the three cultural groups. Future studies should identify the cultural variations of the meaning of the construct for parental intrusiveness, that is, how different aspects of parental intrusiveness are conceptualized in different cultures through both qualitative and quantitative studies. 5.3. Strengths, limitations, and future studies The current study has several strengths. First, the sample is drawn from a nation-wide large sample which enables SEM analysis for investigating a more comprehensive model of socializing child mastery motivation in family contexts. Second, this study used a direct observation of parents’ and children’s behaviors, a measurement which can provide more objective and accurate data about parent-child interactions than questionnaires or interviews (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Roggman, Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, & Christiansen, 2013). A challenge for generalizing our results, however, is that all of the families in the study lived in poverty; there may be wider variation among each ethnic group if the samples included more variation in family socio-economic contexts. On the other hand, given that minority families in the US are more likely to live in poverty, limiting the sample to those in poverty did serve to help provide some socio-economic equivalence between the ethnic groups. The sample of the current study is also limited to the families who participated in the videotaped puzzle game; those families without videotaped data were in more severe poverty and experienced more family risk factors, which were less represented in the study. Therefore, the generalization of conclusions of the current studies to other SES groups should be made with caution. If we could expand the diversity of the sample, the variables in the current study might have larger variance and therefore might alter our conclusion about the effects, or lack of effects, of parental intrusiveness on child persistence for some groups. Another challenge is the limited evidence of cross-ethnic construct validity of measuring young children’s mastery motivation. Busch-Rossnagel, Vargas, Knauf, and Planos (2016) observed the performance of both Hispanic and White children (from 16 to 38 months) in various challenging tasks. They found that, for both sample, children tended to persist more on moderately difficult tasks than too-easy tasks and too-difficult tasks. Further, the authors measured mastery motivation and children’s other related characteristics through parent-report method, and found that Hispanic and White sample shared the construct validity of measuring young children’s mastery motivation. However, there is no evidence about cross-ethnic construct validity for African American group. In the current study, we provide some information about cross-ethnic validity for all three groups, but future research is necessary to provide more evidence of cross-cultural validity of measuring mastery motivation. Further, one critique of the current study could be our reliance on one rating score (ranging from 1 to 7) for each key variable, which prevents us from ruling out the possibility of psychometric issues as one of the explanations for the null results in the current study. However, previous studies that used a similar way of measuring the same parenting behaviors during a free-play setting have shown the reliability of the measurement (e.g., Ispa et al.,

2004) and the stable effects of parenting on child outcomes (BradySmith et al., 2013; Chang, Park, Singh, & Sung, 2009; Chang, Park, & Kim, 2009; Fuligni et al., 2013; Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). In the future, to enhance the evidence of reliability of these measures, the key behaviors should be observed repeatedly, such as coding each variable via time sampling in order to obtain multiple observations within one video, or measuring child persistence as the total time of goal-directed behaviors, which is a continuous variable. In conclusion, parents of different ethnic groups in the United States have different effective ways of socializing their young children’s mastery motivation. Parenting interventions and other supports for parents in poverty should respect the cultural differences in the ways parents support their children’s development; focusing on positive parenting behaviors (autonomy supportiveness and cognitive stimulation) may ultimately be more effective than focusing on behaviors typically seen as negative (intrusiveness), which may vary in meaning across groups. Finally, to better understanding socialization processes, scientists of child development and parenting should continue to investigate the cultural meanings of parenting behaviors within different groups, rather than comparing mean levels of parenting behaviors across groups.

References Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observational measures of parent–child interaction: An introductory review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8, 136–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00061 Ayón, C., Williams, L. R., Marsiglia, F. F., Ayers, S., & Kiehne, E. (2015). A latent profile analysis of Latino parenting: The infusion of cultural values on family conflict. Families in Society the Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 96(3), 203–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2015.96.25 Badridze, N. (2003). Maternal behavior, infant attention and temperament at 9 and 24 months as predictors of mastery motivation at 24 months. Newark: Rutgers University. Bae, H., Hopkins, J., Gouze, K. R., & Lavigne, J. V. (2014). Parenting, child behavior, and academic and social functioning: Does ethnicity make a difference? Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(4), 433–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-0149246-1 Banerjee, P. N., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2007). Infants’ persistence and mothers’ teaching as predictors of toddlers’ cognitive development. Infant Behavior & Development, 30(3), 479–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.12.001 Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (1995). Continuities and discontinuities in mastery motivation during infancy and toddlerhood: A conceptualization and review. In I. E. Siegel, R. H. MacTurk, & G. A. Morgan (Eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychology: Vol. 12. Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations, and application (pp. 57–94). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Barrett, K. C., Morgan, G. A., & Maslin-Cole, C. (1993). Three studies on the development of mastery motivation in infancy and toddlerhood. In D. Messer (Ed.), Mastery motivation in early childhood: Development, measurement, and social processes (pp. 83–108). London: Houtledge. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030372 Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0272431691111004 Berhenke, A., Miller, A. L., Brown, E., Seifer, R., & Dickstein, S. (2011). Observed emotional and behavioral indicators of motivation predict school readiness in Head Start graduates. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 430–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.04.001 Boyd, T. L. (1982). Learned helplessness in humans: A frustration-produced response pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 738–752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.738 Brady-Smith, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Ispa, J. M., Fuligni, A. S., Chazan-Cohen, R., & Fine, M. A. (2013). Mother–infant interactions in early Head Start: A person-oriented within-ethnic group approach. Parenting, Science and Practice, 13, 27–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2013.732430 Bradly-Smith, C., Ryan, R., Berlin, L. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Fuligni, A. (2001). 36-month child-parent interaction rating scales for the puzzle task assessment Unpublished coding manuscript. Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent worth. Child Development, 66(6), 1719–1738. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00961.x Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Vargas, M., Knauf, D. E., & Planos, R. (2016). Mastery motivation in ethnic minority groups: The sample case of hispanics. In Mastery motivation in early childhood. pp. 132–148. Routledge. Chang, M., Park, B., & Kim, S. (2009). Parenting classes, parenting behavior, and child cognitive development in Early Head Start: A longitudinal model. School Community Journal, 19(1), 155.

W. Wang et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51 (2020) 329–337 Chang, M., Park, B., Singh, K., & Sung, Y. Y. (2009). Parental involvement, parenting behaviors, and children’s cognitive development in low-income and minority families. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(3), 309–324. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594663 Carlson, V. J., & Harwood, R. L. (2003). Attachment, culture, and the caregiving system: The cultural patterning of everyday experiences among Anglo and Puerto Rican mother-infant pairs. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 53–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10043 Coll, C. G., & Pachter, L. M. (2002). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 4 social conditions and applied parenting. Psychology Press. Deater-Deckard, K., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Anger/frustration, task persistence, and conduct problems in childhood: A behavioral genetic analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(1), 80–87. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01653.x Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104 01 Domènech Rodriguez, M. M., Donovick, M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in first-generation Latinos. Family Process, 48(2), 195–210. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01277.x Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project: Final Technical Report Appendixes, 2002. Fuligni, A. S., Brady-Smith, C., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Chazan-Cohen, R., Boyce, L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Patterns of supportive mothering with 1-, 2-, and 3-year-olds by ethnicity in early Head Start. Parenting, Science and Practice, 13, 44–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2013.732434 Fuligni, A. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Mother–child interactions in early Head Start: Age and ethnic differences in low-income dyads. Parenting, Science and Practice, 13, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2013.732422 Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030–1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8624.00075 García Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H. V., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131600 Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1-3 year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526–1541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12064 Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00934.x Harwood, R., Leyendecker, B., Carlson, V., Asencio, M., & Miller, A. (2002). Parenting among Latino families in the U.S. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 4 social conditions and applied parenting. Psychology Press. Huston, A. C., McLoyd, V. C., & Coll, C. G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in contemporary research. Child Development, 65(2), 275–282. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00750.x Ispa, J. M., Csizmadia, A., Rudy, D., Fine, M. A., Krull, J. L., Bradley, R. H., & Cabrera, N. (2013). Patterns of maternal directiveness by ethnicity among early Head Start research participants. Parenting, Science and Practice, 13, 58–75. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/15295192.2013.732439 Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S., Robinson, J., Boyce, L., . . . & Brady-Smith, C. (2004). Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and mother–toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low-income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child Development, 75(6), 1613–1631. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00806.x Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family Relations, 30–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 585139 Kelley, S. A., Brownell, C. A., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Mastery motivation and self-evaluative affect in toddlers: Longitudinal relations with maternal behavior. Source: Child Development Child Development, 71(4), 1061–1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00209 Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(3), 255–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ A:1016863921662 LeCuyer, E. A., Swanson, D. P., Cole, R., & Kitzman, H. (2011). Effect of African-and European-American maternal attitudes and limit-setting strategies on children’s self-regulation. Research in Nursing & Health, 34, 468–482. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/nur.20460 Lee, J. A. (2014). The development of mastery motivation in young children. Michigan State University. Luo, R., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2016). Mothers’ verbal and nonverbal strategies in relation to infants’ object-directed actions in real time and across the first three years in ethnically diverse families. Infancy, 21(1), 65–89. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/infa.12099 MacPhee, D., Prendergast, S., Albrecht, E., Walker, A. K., & Miller-Heyl, J. (2018). The child-rearing environment and children’s mastery motivation as contributors

337

to school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.01.002 Marsland, K. W. (2005). Antecedents of mastery and helplessness in five-year-Olds: A longitudinal study of the roles of infant mastery motivation and maternal socialization. Yale University. Master, A. L., Dweck, C. S., Markman, E. M., & Walton, G. M. (2011). “I want to try and try”: Increasing achievement motivation in young children. Stanford University. Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Longitudinal associations among interest, persistence, supportive parenting, and achievement in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 658–667. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.003 Mokrova, I. L., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Leerkes, E. M., & Marcovitch, S. (2012). Family social status and preschoolers’ persistence: The role of maternal values and quality of parenting. Infant and Child Development, 21(6), 617–633. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.1761 Morgan, G. A., MacTurk, R. H., & Hrncir, E. J. (1995). Mastery motivation: Overview, definitions, and conceptual issues. In I. E. Siegel, R. H. MacTurk, & G. A. Morgan (Eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychology: Vol. 12. Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations, and application (pp. 1–18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Moore, M. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Adolescent parenthood. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 3 being and becoming a parent. Psychology Press. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Ng, F. F., Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children’s achievement moderates the effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy support. Child Development, 75(3), 764–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004. 00705.x Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wolfson, A., Mumme, D., & Guskin, K. (1995). Helplessness in children of depressed and nondepressed mothers. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 377–387. Oades-Sese, G. V., Matthews, T. A., & Lewis, M. (2014). Shame and pride and their effects on student achievement. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education; Alexander, PA (pp. 246–264). Prendergast, S., & MacPhee, D. (2018). Parental contributors to children’s persistence and school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.005 Roggman, L. A., Cook, G. A., Innocenti, M. S., Jump Norman, V., & Christiansen, K. (2013). Parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations linked to outcomes (PICCOLO) in diverse ethnic groups. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(4), 290–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21389 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Sparks, T. A., Hunter, S. K., Backman, T. L., Morgan, G. A., & Ross, R. G. (2012). Maternal parenting stress and mothers’ reports of their infants’ mastery motivation. Infant Behavior & Development, 35, 167–173. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.infbeh.2011.07.002 Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Briggs, R. D., McClowry, S. G., & Snow, D. L. (2009). Maternal control and sensitivity, child gender, and maternal education in relation to children’s behavioral outcomes in African American families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 321–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev. 2008.12.018 Taylor, Z. E., Conger, R. D., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2015). Parenting practices and perceived social support: Longitudinal relations with the social competence of Mexican-origin children. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 193–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lat0000038 Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 495–505. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.495 Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Wang, J., Morgan, G. A., & Biringen, Z. (2014). Mother–toddler affect exchanges and children’s mastery behaviours during preschool years. Infant and Child Development, 23, 139–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.1825 White, R., Nair, R. L., & Bradley, R. H. (2018). Theorizing the benefits and costs of adaptive cultures for development. The American Psychologist, 73(6), 727–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000237 White, R. M. B., Zeiders, K. H., Gonzales, N. A., Tein, J. Y., & Roosa, M. W. (2013). Cultural values, U.S. Neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 365–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0032888 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Yarrow, L. J., MacTurk, R. H., Vietze, P. M., McCarthy, M. E., Klein, R. P., & McQuiston, S. (1984). Development course of parental stimulation and its relationship to mastery motivation during infancy. Developmental Psychology, 20(3), 492–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.3.492 Young, J. M., & Hauser-Cram, P. (2006). Mother-child interaction as a predictor of mastery motivation in children with disabilities born preterm. Journal of Applied Intervention, 28(4), 252–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 105381510602800402