View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Growth in Early Mother-Child Dyadic Qualities and Relations to Preschool Problem Behavior

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Growth in Early Mother-Child Dyadic Qualities and Relations to Preschool Problem Behavior
Language: English
Authors: Julia A. Gajewski-Nemes, Pamela A. Morris-Perez, Alan L. Mendelsohn, Daniel S. Shaw
Source: Social Development. 2025 34(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: HD076390
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Descriptors: Parent Child Relationship, Mothers, Preschool Children, Child Behavior, Behavior Problems, Infant Behavior, Low Income Groups, Parent Education, School Readiness
DOI: 10.1111/sode.70011
ISSN: 0961-205X
1467-9507
Abstract: The importance of the parent-child relationship during early childhood (i.e., 0-5 years) on children's socioemotional functioning has been extensively documented in the literature. However, limited work has examined the degree to which dyadic features of the parent-child relationship changes over the course of early childhood and whether growth in these features relate to children's functioning. The present study aimed to address this limitation by examining change trajectories of dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment during the first 2 years of life and whether these trajectories were associated with child problem behavior at age four. The sample was comprised of 374 low-income, infant-mother dyads recruited for an efficacy trial of a tiered parenting program designed to promote school readiness. Affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were assessed via coded interaction tasks between mothers and their infants at 6, 18, and 24 months. Mothers reported on children's internalizing and externalizing problem behavior at 48 months. Results from latent growth curve analysis revealed dyads' affective mutuality significantly increased, and mutual enjoyment significantly decreased, from 6 to 24 months. Initial levels and positive change in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months were both negatively associated with child internalizing problems, but not externalizing problems, at 48 months. These findings emphasize the importance of conducting work that conceptualizes the dyad as the unit of study and explores how changes in the parent-child relationship may themselves be important indicators for children's future functioning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/6w88xmcv9m/1
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1478629
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwExEK7ONimt-VeW6V3OYvNNAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAm5UtTnHDF0LrU63QIBEICBmvauFNH1uRifvG_55myDPM-jlJXNXXQaYFlDE2Ck2HWeglpjD4JQ-8B_420y2hAZVwSwUcz3WHMmStxCImwvldnw1XywmC9H0oT--l7nUDPsECqXuOm01g7MoPrVrL_z0wrNYDDz0AMuO4WH5JefRo9AL_ZxaCSOnBgdGUb_FgoiXHFn21PLWYBqaVLX0AT3_U_xGxPtz1ErNFU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186954508;bsp01aug.25;2025Jul30.03:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186954508-1">Growth in Early Mother–Child Dyadic Qualities and Relations to Preschool Problem Behavior </title> <p>The importance of the parent–child relationship during early childhood (i.e., 0–5 years) on children's socioemotional functioning has been extensively documented in the literature. However, limited work has examined the degree to which dyadic features of the parent–child relationship changes over the course of early childhood and whether growth in these features relate to children's functioning. The present study aimed to address this limitation by examining change trajectories of dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment during the first 2 years of life and whether these trajectories were associated with child problem behavior at age four. The sample was comprised of 374 low‐income, infant–mother dyads recruited for an efficacy trial of a tiered parenting program designed to promote school readiness. Affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were assessed via coded interaction tasks between mothers and their infants at 6, 18, and 24 months. Mothers reported on children's internalizing and externalizing problem behavior at 48 months. Results from latent growth curve analysis revealed dyads' affective mutuality significantly increased, and mutual enjoyment significantly decreased, from 6 to 24 months. Initial levels and positive change in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months were both negatively associated with child internalizing problems, but not externalizing problems, at 48 months. These findings emphasize the importance of conducting work that conceptualizes the dyad as the unit of study and explores how changes in the parent–child relationship may themselves be important indicators for children's future functioning.</p> <p>Keywords: affective mutuality; internalizing; early childhood; mother–child dyad; latent growth curve; low‐income</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The importance of parenting during early childhood (i.e., 0–5 years) on children's socioemotional functioning has been extensively documented in the literature, including studies using genetically informed research designs (Leve et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]; Reuben et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref2">54</reflink>]). Anchored in social learning and attachment theories, parenting behaviors that communicate warmth, acceptance, and respect for one's child are thought to scaffold formative skills as they model appropriate regulation and interpersonal strategies while also fostering an internal working model in children that expects others to treat them with acceptance and respect in their social relationships (Domitrovich and Bierman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]). Consistent with these theories, empirical work has demonstrated that affectively positive parenting practices are associated with a range of positive child outcomes, such as increased self‐regulatory capacities, emotional understanding, and prosocial behavior (Denham et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Fay Stammbach et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]; Neppl et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]; Williams and Berthelsen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]). Conversely, harsh and overcontrolling parenting behaviors tend to be associated with an increased likelihood that children will develop emotional and conduct‐related problems in later childhood (Berthelon et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Edwards and Hans [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]; Lorber and Egeland [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref10">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>While early parenting behaviors are undeniably important to a child's socioemotional functioning, parenting dimensions alone fail to account for the degree to which both the parent <emph>and</emph> child contribute to the nature of parent–child interactions and resulting child outcomes. According to Sameroff's transactional model of development (Sano et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref11">57</reflink>]), the parent–child dyad is better thought of as a dynamically interacting system in which each partner influences and is influenced by the other over time. Extending this perspective, Fogel's dynamic systems theory (1993) emphasizes that dyadic processes are emergent, co‐regulated patterns of interaction that arise from the moment‐to‐moment coordination, rupture, and repair between interactional partners. According to Fogel, these processes cannot be reduced to individual behaviors but rather reflect the relational qualities—such as mutual affect, responsiveness, and synchrony—that characterize how the dyad functions as a unit. Central to his theory, Fogel also identifies relationships as continuously evolving, with new patterns emerging as interactional partners adapt to each other and to shifting contextual demands.</p> <p>Despite this theoretical foundation, measures of parenting have received much greater attention in the literature than parent–child dyadic constructs in relation to child outcomes. Moreover, work that does examine the dyad as the unit of study overwhelmingly assess dyadic dimensions at single timepoints (Leclère et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref12">39</reflink>]). However, this static, trait‐like characterization of the parent–child dyad neglects the ways in which the dyad evolves as they are required to renegotiate their expectations as children physically and cognitively mature during early childhood (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]). Moreover, operationalization of the early parent–child relationship at single timepoints fails to recognize how parent–child dynamics can change as family contexts shift (e.g., loss of employment, birth of a new child, COVID‐19), which may be particularly salient for low‐income and racially/ethnically minoritized families who are more likely to experience family and household instability (Ackerman et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]; Kennedy and Bumpass [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref15">34</reflink>]; Sano et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref16">57</reflink>]). In fact, previous work by Gutman and Feinstein ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]) found that mothers who completed fewer years of schooling demonstrated steeper growth in positive interactions with their children from 6 to 38 months relative to more highly educated mothers in the sample, suggesting that one‐time assessments may mask meaningful change—particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged families.</p> <p>Despite compelling evidence to suggest that parent–child dyadic qualities may shift over time, relatively little is known about the change in these constructs across early childhood. Even fewer studies have explored whether longitudinal change in these constructs is predictive of children's later socioemotional functioning, especially among low‐income, racially and ethnically diverse samples.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-3">Dyadic Markers of Parent–Child Relationship and Child Functioning</hd> <p>Mounting evidence suggests that parent–child relationships are co‐constructed, dynamic systems in which patterns of interaction emerge from the ongoing exchange between parent and child (Fogel [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]; Moore et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref19">47</reflink>]; Pettit and Loulis [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref20">52</reflink>]). In contrast to viewing parents and children as isolated contributors to developmental outcomes, a dyadic approach conceptualizes the relationship itself as a unit of analysis with its own properties that are shaped by each member of the dyad's behavior but not reducible to either alone. Dyadic processes refer to the ways in which interactional partners coordinate, adapt, and respond to one another in real time, including how they navigate emotional attunement, manage mismatches or conflict, and engage in mutual regulation over the course of an interaction. Despite these notions being widely accepted within developmental theory, such dyadic processes remain underrepresented in empirical work, which has historically emphasized individual‐level parenting behaviors.</p> <p>However, dyadic constructs can offer unique predictive value above and beyond parenting dimensions alone. In fact, previous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of observed parent–child interactions found that individual parent indicators, individual infant indicators, and dyadic indicators tended to load onto distinct factors (Askan et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]; Moore et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref22">48</reflink>]). Moreover, empirical studies have found that parent–child dyadic constructs such as mutuality predict children's self‐control and social competence independently of parenting measures (Feldman et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]; Lindsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]). Taken together, these findings underscore the idea that dyadic constructs tap into unique aspects of parent–child relational functioning that are not fully captured by parent‐level variables. Thus, while more labor‐intensive to measure, dyadic constructs can offer critical insight into relational processes that scaffold early socialization.</p> <p>Dyadic mutuality (also referred to as "synchrony" and "attunement"; Funamoto and Rinaldi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]) is among the most commonly examined dyadic characteristics in the parent–child interaction literature (Harrist and Waugh [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]). Interactions high in mutuality are marked by reciprocity, cooperativeness, and responsiveness among the dyad. In contrast, interactions low in mutuality are marked by imbalance, with one or both members of the dyad attempting to direct and dominate the interaction (Lindsey and Caldera [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]). According to the Mutual Regulation Model of parent–child interaction (Gianino and Tronick [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]), parents and children both play active roles in regulating each other's emotional and behavioral states, and it is through repeated, mutual interactions that infants learn to regulate their own emotional and physiological states. Thus, a dyad's ability to achieve mutuality during interactions in early childhood is thought to influence a child's future social‐emotional development. Consistent with this theory, interactions high in mutuality have been associated with a range of prosocial child outcomes (Leclère et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]), such as improved social competence (Lindsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]), increased self‐regulatory capacities (Brody and Flor [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]; Kochanska et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]), and decreased problem behavior (Deater Decker and Petrill [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]; Harrist et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the construct of dyadic mutuality does not require that dyads share the same affect during an interaction, some studies have specifically examined the importance of shared positive affect, or mutual enjoyment, on children's socioemotional development. Shared positive affect is thought to be particularly supportive of a child's development as it may signal a child's openness to parental requests and can often be indicative of a secure attachment between a child and their caregiver. Empirical work has supported the benefits of shared positive affect during early childhood, as it has been associated with lower levels of externalizing behaviors (Lindsey [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]; Lunkenheimer et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref36">46</reflink>]) and early conscience development in children (Kochanska and Aksan [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]; Laible and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Importantly, the expression of dyadic qualities like mutuality and shared positive affect may be shaped by culturally grounded parenting approaches and beliefs about the parent–child relationship. Previous work has found that lower‐income Black and Latina mothers more often engage in parenting strategies focused on child safety and preparedness for threat than their higher‐income, white counterparts (Brody and Flor [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]; Domenech Rodríguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>]). These approaches tend to emphasize behavioral control and vigilance—sometimes at the expense of autonomy granting—coupled with moderate to high levels of warmth, often described as "no nonsense parenting" among Black mothers and "protective parenting" among Latina mothers. However, much of this literature relies on parent‐report or unidirectional measures of parenting behavior. Investigating affectively grounded dyadic processes (e.g., affective attunement; mutual enjoyment), is especially important in low‐income Black and Latina families, as prevailing models of dyadic functioning and their relations to child outcomes—largely developed with white, higher income samples—may not generalize to families whose parenting strategies are shaped by distinct sociocultural demands (e.g., Dunbar et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]). Yet, few studies have directly examined affective dyadic constructs in these populations, representing a critical gap in the literature.</p> <p>Moreover, studies on dyadic mutuality and mutual enjoyment typically examine these dimensions at single timepoints, failing to recognize the possible ways in which qualities of the parent–child relationship may evolve across early childhood and influence children's developing socioemotional competencies (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]; Funamoto and Rinaldi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-4">Changes in Dyadic Characteristics across Early Childhood</hd> <p>Theoretical and empirical reviews of dyadic constructs measured at single timepoints suggest that parent–child mutuality is generally comprised of the same core components across infancy and toddlerhood (Funamoto and Rinaldi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]; Harrist and Waugh [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]). Specifically, sustained engagement, contingency, and moment‐to‐moment coordination have been identified as central to mutuality across developmental periods. However, the behavioral expressions of these core features shift with development (Funamoto and Rinaldi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]; Harrist and Waugh [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]). In infancy, mutuality is often conveyed through nonverbal channels such as mutual gaze, facial affect, and touch. By toddlerhood, emerging autonomy and language allow for more complex forms of mutual engagement, including verbal negotiation, shared problem‐solving, and affective reciprocity through conversation. These changes do not necessarily imply that the underlying construct of mutuality is different across ages, but rather that it is developmentally expressed in new ways. As such, global approaches to assessing mutuality and related constructs—which focus on the quality of the dyadic exchange rather than honing in on specific behaviors—may be particularly well suited to capture this continuity.</p> <p>To our knowledge, there have only been four studies to date that have directly examined longitudinal change in dyadic features of the parent–child relationship during early childhood. Borenstein and Putnick ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]) examined the stability of observed parent–child relationship quality from infancy to adolescence (i.e., 5 months, 4, 10, and 14 years) among a white, socioeconomically heterogeneous sample (<emph>N</emph> = 375). They found that relationship quality, characterized by a latent variable comprised of a range of developmentally appropriate child and parent behaviors, became increasingly stable with age. From 5 months to 4 years, magnitudes of stability were modest, with increasing stability found in middle childhood and adolescence. These results suggest that very early childhood (i.e., 0 to 2 years) is a particularly important time to longitudinally assess the parent–child relationship because of its greater variability than later periods of development.</p> <p>Sitnick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref49">60</reflink>]) examined observations of dyadic positive engagement and mutually coercive behaviors at ages 2, 3, 4, and 5 among a sample of 731 caregiver‐child dyads (50% White, 28% Black, 10% Latine) among children at risk for early‐emerging behavior problems. Dyadic positive engagement and mutual coercion were both moderately stable from 2 to 5 years old, suggesting that positively and negatively valenced interactions might not undergo significant year‐to‐year shifts at the group level during this period. However, considerable development takes place prior to age 2 that could result in greater change within the parent–child relationship missed in Sitnick et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]) study.</p> <p>Partly addressing this concern, Askan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]) examined changes in caregiver‐infant "mutually responsive orientation" from 7 to 15 months among a predominantly white, socioeconomically diverse sample (<emph>N</emph> = 101). Mutual responsive orientation was a latent factor comprised of four dimensions: coordinated routines, harmonious communication, mutual cooperation, and positive emotional ambiance. Of these observed dimensions, coordinated routines were the only one to demonstrate significant change (i.e., decline) from 7 to 15 months, suggesting that different dyadic constructs demonstrate variable degrees of change across very early childhood. The authors hypothesized that decreases in parent–child coordinated routines might reflect a child's increasing sense of self and autonomy that manifests in decreased willingness to participate in daily routines with their parents but might not directly influence other constructs involved in mutual responsive orientation.</p> <p>Similarly interested in very early childhood, Feldman ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]) examined change in parent–child "mutual influence" from 3 to 9 months among a middle‐class, Israeli sample (<emph>N</emph> = 36). Mutual influence was conceptualized as a component of synchrony marked by a dyad's responsiveness to changes in their partner's affective states. On average, Feldman found that mutual influence significantly increased from 3 to 9 months, which she attributed to infants' growing capacity to perceive their parent's interactive intentions and attune to their parent's affective states starting at 6 months (Stern [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref53">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taken together, these findings indicate that changes in dyadic constructs vary by both the dimension assessed and the timing of measurement. Very early childhood appears to be a particularly sensitive window for detecting such changes, as some dimensions—like behavioral coordination—may decline with increasing child autonomy (Askan et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>]), whereas others—such as affective responsiveness—may strengthen as infants develop greater social‐emotional capacities (Feldman [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, the clear paucity of literature examining longitudinal changes in features of the parent–child relationship at the dyadic level calls for a wider variety of work that explores the degree to which parent–child dyadic features—particularly mutuality and mutual enjoyment which have received heightened attention at single timepoints—change over the course of early childhood. Moreover, it will be important to explore the implications of individual dyads' unique patterns of change in relation to children's socioemotional adjustment.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-5">Present Study</hd> <p>The present study sought to address some of the gaps in the extant literature by examining whether initial levels and growth in dyadic features of the parent–child relationship, specifically affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment, across the first 2 years of a child's life are associated with child problem behavior at age four. This study is among the first to examine the way in which observed, dyadic features of the parent–child relationship evolve over the first 2 years of life—importantly capturing periods of early childhood characterized by rapid physical and cognitive development that have been crucially missed in previous longitudinal work. Moreover, the present study will extend beyond previous work that has simply aimed to describe early trajectories of parent–child mutuality and will explore whether <emph>changes</emph> in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment predict child functioning above and beyond these features at single timepoints. Lastly, and very importantly, the present study examines these relationships among a low‐income, racially and ethnically diverse sample—a population that has been overrepresented in studies examining parent–child dynamics historically deemed negative and harsh with less representation among studies examining trends in positive, warm, and attuned parent–child interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-6">Aims and Hypotheses</hd> <p>Our first aim was to describe trends in initial levels and changes in dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment from 6 to 18 to 24 months. Although no study to date has examined longitudinal changes in these two dyadic qualities during early childhood, relevant theoretical models and empirical work suggest children become more active agents in the parent–child relationship as they acquire greater verbal, cognitive, and motor abilities (Cohn and Tronick [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]; Funamoto and Rinaldi [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]; Harrist and Waugh [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). In theory, these increased capacities should not only allow children to better communicate their needs, but also better comprehend the bids of their social partners. Moreover, repeated interactions between a mother and child provide more opportunities for dyads to learn from one another and adjust their attunement. Thus, like the increase in affective responsiveness documented by Feldman ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref59">20</reflink>]), we hypothesized that dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment would increase from 6 to 24 months.</p> <p>Our second aim was to examine whether initial levels and growth in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment across the first 2 years of a child's life would be associated with child problem behavior at age four. Based on work conducted at single timepoints which have demonstrated that greater mutuality and shared positive affect relate to decreased problem behavior and better self‐regulation (e.g., Brody and Flor [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref60">9</reflink>]; Deater Decker and Petrill [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>]; Lindsey [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]; Lunkenheimer et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref63">46</reflink>]), it is hypothesized that initial levels and growth in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment will be negatively associated with child internalizing and externalizing problem behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-7">Method</hd> <p>This study involved secondary analysis of observational and survey data collected as part of an ongoing multisite randomized controlled trial testing the Smart Beginnings model (see Shaw et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref64">59</reflink>] for a description). Mother–child dyads in the larger study were randomly assigned to the Smart Beginnings condition (<emph>n</emph> = 201) or the control group (<emph>n</emph> = 202) within 1 month of childbirth. Families in the Smart Beginnings intervention group received intervention services until age three. Families assigned to the control group continued their routine primary care. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02459327) and IRB approval was obtained from NYU (FY2016‐408), NYU Grossman School of Medicine (S14‐01764), and University of Pittsburgh (STUDY19040158). The present observational study focused on relations between early childhood mother–child dyadic interactions and child's socioemotional functioning across all participants, controlling for intervention group.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-8">Participants</hd> <p>The original sample comprised 403 mother–infant dyads recruited shortly following birth from hospitals serving families in Pittsburgh (<emph>n</emph> = 203) and New York City (<emph>n</emph> = 200) between June 2015 and October 2017. To be eligible, mothers had to be the infant's primary caregiver, be on public insurance, have no prior participation in the interventions, and speak English or Spanish. In addition, infants had to be full‐term singletons with no significant medical conditions. Twenty‐nine families were missing data across all variables of interest and were dropped from the present analyses. Thus, the final analytic sample for the present study comprised 374 mother–infant dyads (Pittsburgh <emph>n</emph> = 190; New York <emph>n =</emph> 184).</p> <p>Descriptive statistics of the sample are depicted in Table 1. The full sample was composed of mothers whose annual household incomes, on average, fell below the federal poverty threshold, as demonstrated by the average income‐to‐needs ratio falling below 1.0 (<emph>M</emph> = 0.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.60). Mothers were racially and ethnically diverse, with the majority of mothers identified as either Black (45%) or Latina (44%). On average, mothers were 27.64 years old (<emph>SD =</emph> 5.80) when their child was born, and one‐third of mothers were first‐time parents. However, there were several site‐specific differences in the sample. Namely, mothers in Pittsburgh were predominantly Black (82%), whereas most mothers in New York City were Latina (85%). Additionally, mothers at the Pittsburgh site were more likely to have graduated from high school and had lower overcrowding ratios than mothers in New York City. On the other hand, mothers in New York City were more likely to be married or cohabitating with their partner, were older at the birth of the target child, and had higher income‐to‐needs compared to mothers in Pittsburgh.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic characteristics of the Smart Beginnings sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th><italic>n</italic> (%) or mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr><tr><th /><th><p>Full sample</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 374)</p></th><th><p>Pittsburgh</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 190)</p></th><th><p>New York City</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 184)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Child characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>184 (49%)</td><td>94 (50%)</td><td>90 (49%)</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's first child</td><td>123 (33%)</td><td>61 (32%)</td><td>62 (34%)</td></tr><tr><td>Age at 48‐month assessment</td><td>53.43 (5.23)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>57.52 (4.22)</td><td>49.52 (2.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Mother characteristics</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age at birth</td><td>27.64 (5.80)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>25.99 (5.32)</td><td>29.33 (5.79)</td></tr><tr><td>Younger than 20</td><td>23 (6%)</td><td>15 (8%)</td><td>8 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td>20–29</td><td>232 (62%)</td><td>137 (72%)</td><td>95 (52%)</td></tr><tr><td>30–39</td><td>107 (29%)</td><td>35 (18%)</td><td>72 (39%)</td></tr><tr><td>40 or older</td><td>11 (3%)</td><td>2 (1%)</td><td>9 (5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Latina (1)</td><td>163 (44%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>6 (3%)</td><td>157 (85%)</td></tr><tr><td>Black (2)</td><td>169 (45%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>155 (82%)</td><td>14 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>White (3)</td><td>24 (6%)<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>22 (12%)</td><td>2 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian (4)</td><td>4 (1%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>4 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other (5)</td><td>10 (3%)</td><td>6 (3%)</td><td>4 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><High school</td><td>116 (31%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>32 (17%)</td><td>84 (46%)</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td>131 (35%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>87 (46%)</td><td>44 (24%)</td></tr><tr><td>>High school</td><td>123 (33%)</td><td>71 (37%)</td><td>52 (28%)</td></tr><tr><td>Marital status</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Married or living with partner</td><td>226 (60%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>79 (42%)</td><td>147 (80%)</td></tr><tr><td>Live separately from partner</td><td>85 (23%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>67 (35%)</td><td>18 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>58 (16%)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>44 (23%)</td><td>14 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Income‐to‐needs ratio</td><td>0.71 (0.60)<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.63 (0.60)</td><td>0.82 (0.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Overcrowding ratio</td><td>1.12 (0.53)<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>0.86 (0.31)</td><td>1.41 (0.58)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Notes</emph>: Demographics were reported at the 6‐month assessment. Asterisks denote variables in which means (for continuous variables) or proportions (for categorical variables) were significantly different across study sites.</p> <p>2 <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, and <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-9">Procedure</hd> <p>Consenting procedures took place at the hospital where the participating mothers gave birth to the participating child. Baseline assessments, during which mothers completed a short questionnaire about their sociodemographic characteristics, were conducted approximately 2 weeks later when the dyad returned for their second pediatric appointment. During 6, 18, and 24‐month follow‐up visits, mother–child dyads participated in 15–30 min of videorecorded interaction tasks as part of a larger 2‐h lab‐ or home‐based assessment. At the 6‐month assessment, mothers and children engaged in a 5‐min, structured free‐play task; at the 18‐ and 24‐month assessments, parent–child dyads engaged in a 5‐min clean‐up task and two 3‐min teaching tasks, in addition to a 6‐min free‐play task. During the free‐play tasks, mothers were instructed to play with their child using study‐provided, developmentally appropriate toys typically available in homes. In the clean‐up task, mothers were instructed to guide their child to clean up the toys that they played with during the free‐play task without mothers assisting in the clean‐up themselves. The teaching tasks were comprised of a stacking tower and a puzzle designed to be slightly above the child's developmental level. The tasks were designed to be slightly above the child's developmental level to create a mild challenge for the child, increasing the likelihood that children would require their mother's guidance. Clean‐up and teaching tasks were added to the 18‐ and 24‐month assessments to match children's increasing motor skills and cognitive abilities that allow them to participate in more challenging tasks and to increase the likelihood of seeing variability in parent–child interactions.</p> <p>The recorded tasks were later coded by a trained, undergraduate coding team blind to participants' treatment group assignment. Training consisted of weekly meetings comprised of coding system didactics, consensus coding training videos as a group, and trainees independently coding training videos until they achieved reliability (<emph>κ</emph> > 0.60 for each code) with a "gold‐standard" coder. The six members of this coding team coded all tapes at the 6‐, 18‐, and 24‐month assessments. Coders fluent in Spanish (<emph>n</emph> = 3) coded the tapes of families who spoke Spanish during the interaction tasks. At the 48‐month follow‐up, mothers reported on their children's problem behavior as part of a larger 2.5‐h lab‐ or home‐based assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186954508-11">Dyadic Qualities of the Parent–Child Relationship</hd> <p>Affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were assessed via observational tasks during the 6‐, 18‐, and 24‐month assessments. All interactions were videotaped for later coding utilizing an adaptation of the Parent–Child Interaction Rating Scales–Infant Adaptation (PCIRS‐IA; Sosinsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref65">61</reflink>]), an observational scale adapted from several well‐validated behavioral coding schemes developed to assess the nature of a caregiver's parenting behaviors and interactions with their child from early infancy to toddlerhood: the Parent–Child Early Relational Assessment (Clark [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]), the Mother–Child Interaction Rating Scale (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref67">51</reflink>]), the Caregiver‐Child Affect, Responsiveness, and Engagement Scales (Tamis‐LeMonda et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref68">63</reflink>]), and the Emotional Availability scales (Biringen et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref69">7</reflink>]). The PCIRS‐IA was developed to be used among families from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds and has been used among a variety of samples comprised of lower‐income families and predominantly Black and Latine dyads (e.g., Carreras et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]; Foss et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref71">23</reflink>]; Gray et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref72">27</reflink>]; Jones Harden et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]; Lincoln et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>The adapted scale captures the degree to which dyads exhibited several behaviors on a scale from 1 (<emph>very low</emph>) to 7 (<emph>very high</emph>). Of interest to the present study are the constructs of affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment. Affective mutuality describes the degree to which dyads are affectively attuned to one another and is marked by positive and negative emotions being freely expressed, responded to, and accepted within the dyad. Importantly, demonstrating affective mutuality does not mean that dyad's emotions are matched during the interaction; rather, that the dyad engages around feeling states in a way that promotes a sense of ease and comfort with each other. Thus, affective mutuality includes moments when positive emotions are overtly shared and moments when negative emotions are dealt with in a calm, accepting manner or successfully worked through. Mutual enjoyment, on the other hand, describes the degree to which the dyad demonstrates shared enthusiasm and joyfulness and is marked by shared expressions of fun (e.g., joint laughter or smiling). Detailed descriptions of the codebook language used to operationalize affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment are available in the Supporting Information. Notably, these descriptions did not vary across timepoints.</p> <p>Fifteen percent of the interactions were scored by a second independent coder. Weighted Kappas averaged across timepoints were 0.63 for affective mutuality (range <emph>κ<subs>w</subs></emph>: 0.57–0.69) and 0.74 for mutual enjoyment (range <emph>κ<subs>w</subs></emph>: 0.72–0.77), indicating satisfactory agreement between coders across codes and timepoints. Initial levels at 6 months and growth in each of these two dyadic qualities across the three timepoints served as the predictor variables in the present analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-12">Child Problem Behavior</hd> <p>Using maternal reports, children's internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors were assessed at 48‐months via their respective subscales on the Child Behavior Checklist—Preschool (CBCL; Achenbach and Rescorla [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>]). The internalizing problem subscale is comprised of items that capture anxious/depressed behavior (e.g., "cries a lot"), withdrawn/depressed behavior (e.g., "refuses to talk"), and somatic complaints (e.g., "stomachaches"). The externalizing problem subscale is comprised of items that capture rule‐breaking (e.g., "lying or cheating") and aggressive behaviors (e.g., "argues a lot"). Mothers reported on how representative each statement is of their child on a scale of 0 (<emph>not true</emph>) to 2 (<emph>often true</emph>). Scores were summed for each subscale and converted into t‐scores, with higher scores indicating greater internalizing or externalizing behavior. Both subscales demonstrated excellent internal consistency in the present sample (internalizing <emph>α</emph> = 0.89; externalizing <emph>α</emph> = 0.92).</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-13">Covariates</hd> <p>The following covariates were included in all multivariate analyses to rule out "third variable" explanations before attributing variance from parent–child dyadic qualities to later child problem behavior: Child negative emotionality at 6 months, child sex assigned at birth, child age at the 48‐month assessment, family income‐to‐needs ratio, treatment group assignment, and study site. At the first wave of data collection, mothers reported on their annual family income and the number of individuals supported by that income. Income‐to‐needs ratios were calculated by dividing each family's annual income by the families corresponding poverty threshold, accounting for the size of the family. Children's negative emotionality at 6 months was included to account for early child effects on initial levels of dyadic interaction variables and was assessed via the Difficultness subscale of the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ; Bates et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>]). The Difficultness subscale is comprised of 6 items that capture caregiver's perceptions of their infant's tendency to become fussy and irritable on a 7‐point scale. Scores were summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of negative emotionality. Child age at the 48‐month assessment, in months, was included as a covariate as there was considerable variation in age due to delays in data collection with the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic (range: 46.8–70.4). Because of this delay, some children were over the age of 5 when their mother completed the CBCL—Preschool, which is normed for children 1.5–5 years old. Children's sex assigned at birth, dyad treatment group assignment, and study site were dummy coded such that males, members of the control group, and those at the New York City site were the reference groups. Additional maternal socio‐demographic factors were not entered into the models as covariates because of their high correlations with study site, including race/ethnicity, marital status, education, and age at the birth of their child (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-14">Data Analytic Plan</hd> <p>The present study had two aims that were evaluated using latent curve models in a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework in Mplus Version 8.9 ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref77">49</reflink>]). The first aim, to describe initial levels (i.e., intercepts) and growth from 6 to 24 months (i.e., slopes) in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment, was examined by testing unconditional latent curve models. If the dyadic constructs of interest demonstrated significant variance at the intercept or slope in the unconditional models, we then tested the second aim—to investigate whether initial levels and the rate of change in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months predicted children's internalizing and externalizing behaviors at age four. We intended to test this second aim via two identical models—one including affective mutuality and the other including mutual enjoyment as independent variables. In each of the models, intercepts and slopes of the dyadic construct of interest were used to predict child internalizing and externalizing problems while controlling for infant negative emotionality, child sex assigned at birth, family income‐to‐needs ratio, treatment group assignment, and study site. Global model fit was evaluated using conventional relative fit indices: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and chi‐square. Full‐information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to estimate missing data.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-15">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between study variables are presented in Table 2. Of note, observed affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were significantly and positively associated at every timepoint (<emph>r</emph>s range from 0.29 to 0.57, <emph>p</emph>s < 0.001), as were maternal reports of internalizing and externalizing behaviors at 48 months (<emph>r‐</emph>= 0.71, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Using Fisher's z‐tests, affective mutuality demonstrated significantly stronger correlations across adjacent timepoints than did mutual enjoyment (6–18 months: <emph>z</emph> = 2.61, <emph>p</emph> = 0.009; 18–24 months: <emph>z</emph> = 1.92, <emph>p</emph> = 0.050). Affective mutuality was moderately correlated across the three timepoints (<emph>r</emph>s range from 0.32 to 0.39, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), whereas mutual enjoyment was not significantly associated between 6 and 18 months (<emph>r</emph> = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.070) but significantly correlated from 18 to 24 months (<emph>r</emph> = 0.24, <emph>p</emph>‐< 0.001).</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th>Mutual enjoyment</th><th>48 M Internalizing</th><th>48 M Externalizing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Affective mutuality (AM)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6‐months</td><td>4.10</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.57<sup>***</sup></td><td>−0.06</td><td>−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>18‐months</td><td>4.44</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.29<sup>***</sup></td><td>−0.14<sup>*</sup></td><td>−0.06</td></tr><tr><td>24‐months</td><td>4.50</td><td>1.22</td><td>0.33<sup>***</sup></td><td>−0.16<sup>*</sup></td><td>−0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Mutual enjoyment (ME)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6‐months</td><td>2.82</td><td>1.45</td><td>—</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.03</td></tr><tr><td>18‐months</td><td>2.52</td><td>1.16</td><td>—</td><td>0.02</td><td>−0.12<ext-link /><sup>†</sup></td></tr><tr><td>24‐months</td><td>2.60</td><td>1.03</td><td>—</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Internalizing problems (48‐month)</td><td>54.93</td><td>9.09</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>0.71<sup>***</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Externalizing problems (48‐month)</td><td>53.00</td><td>9.78</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: Bivariate correlations between affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were calculated at concurrent timepoints.</item> <item>4 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10, <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, and <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186954508-16">Initial Levels and Growth in Affective Mutuality and Mutual Enjoyment</hd> <p>Unconditional latent curve models with three repeated measures of affective mutuality or mutual enjoyment were estimated to evaluate the overall fit of linear trajectories for the two dyadic constructs of interest. The fixed loadings from the latent slope factor to each of the three measures of affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were 0, 1, and 1.5, reflecting the number of years between assessments. The model that included affective mutuality demonstrated excellent fit to the data (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.73, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> = 0.392; RMSEA = 0.00 (90%‐CI = 0.00 to 0.13); CFI = 1.00). However, the model that included mutual enjoyment demonstrated poor fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 3.90, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> = 0.048; RMSEA = 0.09 (90%‐CI = 0.01 to 0.19); CFI = 0.86) and resulted in a negative variance in the mutual enjoyment slope factor (<emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> = −0.05, <emph>p</emph> = 0.817). Because variance in the slope factor was non‐significant and close to zero, we ran a subsequent model in which the slope factor variance was fixed to zero, resulting in a model that demonstrated adequate fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 3.95, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> = 0.139; RMSEA = 0.05 (90%‐CI = 0.00 to 0.13); CFI = 0.91). Accordingly, only results from this second mutual enjoyment model, with the slope factor fixed to zero, are reported below.</p> <p>Parameter estimates for the two models are presented in Table 3 and their unstandardized, estimated means are plotted in Figure 1. At the 6‐month timepoint, dyads were, on average, rated 4.12 (<emph>p</emph>‐< 0.001) on affective mutuality. However, there was significant residual variance at the intercept (<emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 1.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), indicating individual variation in dyad's affective mutuality at 6 months. On average, dyads increased significantly in their affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months, as indicated by the significant mean slope estimate of 0.27 (<emph>p</emph>‐< 0.001). However, there was also significant variation in growth across dyads as indicated by the residual variance in slope (<emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.49, <emph>p</emph>‐< 0.05). Dyad's initial levels of affective mutuality and growth in affective mutuality were significantly related—with lower levels of affective mutuality at 6 months associated with higher slopes from 6 to 24 months (<emph>ρ</emph> = −0.464, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047).</p> <p>3 TABLE Unconditional latent curve parameter estimates and standard errors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Affective mutuality</th><th>Mutual enjoyment</th></tr><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>Estimate</th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th>Estimate</th><th><italic>SE</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Means</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>4.12<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>0.07</td><td>2.77<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Slope</td><td>0.27<ext-link /><sup>***</sup></td><td>0.06</td><td>−0.15<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Variances</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>1.02<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.31</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Slope</td><td>0.49<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Covariance</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Intercept‐slope</td><td>−0.46<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.23</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>χ<sup>2</sup>,‐df</td><td>0.73, 1</td><td /><td>3.95, 2</td><td /></tr><tr><td>RMSEA</td><td>0.00</td><td /><td>0.05</td><td /></tr><tr><td>CFI</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td>0.91</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SRMR</td><td>0.01</td><td /><td>0.03</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note</emph>: In the mutual enjoyment model, slope factor variance was fixed to 0 due to poor fit in the original model.</item> <item>6 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.01, and <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01aug25/sode70011-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode70011-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Estimated means of affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment. Unstandardized estimates are plotted." /> </p> <p></p> <p>At the 6‐month timepoint, dyads were, on average, rated 2.77 (<emph>p</emph>‐< 0.001) on mutual enjoyment. Dyads, on average, demonstrated significant decreases in mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months, as reflected in a significant mean slope of −0.15 (<emph>p</emph>‐< 0.05). Unlike affective mutuality, however, there was not significant individual variation in dyad's mutual enjoyment at 6 months (<emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.13, <emph>ns</emph>) nor in growth in their mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months. Dyad's initial levels and growth in mutual enjoyment were not significantly related (<emph>ρ</emph> = 0.06, <emph>ns</emph>). As mutual enjoyment did not demonstrate significant individual variation in either growth factor (i.e., intercept and slope), we did not explore whether its intercept or slope predicted child behavior problems.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-18">Prediction of Child Problem Behavior</hd> <p>The SEM model using affective mutuality as the predictor of child internalizing and externalizing problems demonstrated excellent fit to the data (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 20.90, <emph>df</emph> = 21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.465; RMSEA = 0.00 (90%‐CI = 0.00 to 0.04); CFI = 1.00; see Figure 2). After accounting for the aforementioned covariates, initial levels of affective mutuality at 6 months and growth in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months were both significantly negatively associated with child internalizing problems, but not externalizing problems, at 48 months. Collectively, 6‐month affective mutuality, growth in affective mutuality, and control variables accounted for 10% of the variance in child internalizing problems and 17% of the variance in child externalizing problems at 48 months.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BSP/01aug25/sode70011-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sode70011-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Baseline and growth in affective mutuality predicting children internalizing and externalizing problems. Standardized estimates are presented. Dashed lines indicate non‐significant estimates. †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186954508-20">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study sought to describe trends in dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months and to examine whether initial levels and growth in these dyadic features relate to child problem behavior at age 4 among a sample of low‐income, racially and ethnically diverse mother–child dyads. Consistent with our first hypothesis, dyads significantly increased in affective mutuality from 6 to 18 to 24 months. At the same time, contrary to our initial hypothesis, dyads <emph>decreased</emph> in mutual enjoyment across this 18‐month period. Our second hypothesis, that initial levels and growth in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment would be negatively associated with child problem behavior, was only partially explored as there was not sufficient variation in the intercept and slope of mutual enjoyment to meaningfully predict children's outcomes at 48 months. However, both initial levels and growth in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months were both negatively associated with internalizing problems at age four. This same pattern did not hold for externalizing problems—for which neither affective mutuality at 6 months nor growth in affective mutuality were significantly related. This study is among the first to relate longitudinal trends in dyadic features of the parent–child relationship in very early childhood to preschool‐aged child outcomes. The implications of these results are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-21">Changes in Dyadic Features during Early Childhood</hd> <p>Consistent with previous work that has found different longitudinal trends across conceptually distinct dyadic constructs (Askan et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]), we found disparate longitudinal trends in affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months—affective mutuality increased while mutual enjoyment decreased. These differences in the directionality of the two constructs might reflect evolving relational dynamics as children gain autonomy and new capacities for participation in interaction during very early childhood. From 6 to 24 months, children not only achieve significant motor and verbal milestones that can change both parent and child expectations of one another but are also beginning to understand themselves as entities separate from their parents as they become more autonomous, active participants in the parent–child relationship (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]; Harrist and Waugh [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]; Harter [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]). These changes may alter the way that dyads coordinate and respond to one another, likely resulting in contrasting impacts on affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment among low‐income mother–child dyads in urban settings. As children develop greater motor control and cognitive abilities, they may be better able to express their wants and needs to their caregivers—and better understand the wants and needs expressed by their caregivers—allowing for the dyad to be more affectively attuned. Contrastingly, however, this increased desire for autonomy and sense of self that individuates children from their parents might lead to reduced behavioral synchrony and increased likelihood of relational ruptures due to increasing conflicting interests (e.g., children wanting to engage in behaviors that are dangerous or off task, parents wanting to keep their child safe or on task), contributing to declines in mutual enjoyment. Importantly, these shifts may be particularly salient for Black and Latina families, whose parenting practices often emphasize vigilance, protection, and behavioral control as culturally adaptive responses to systemic racism and discrimination.</p> <p>In the present study, we not only see differences in the direction of growth in these dyadic constructs but also differences in their inter‐dyad variability. While affective mutuality demonstrated significant inter‐dyad variability in intercept and slope, mutual enjoyment did not show significant variability in either growth factor from 6 to 24 months. This is to say, not all dyads in our sample initially started at similar levels of affective mutuality at 6 months, nor did they all grow at similar rates from 6 to 24 months. However, dyads did demonstrate relatively similar initial levels and rates of decline in mutual enjoyment from 6 to 24 months.</p> <p>The discrepant variability and rates of change demonstrated by affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment in the present sample might reflect meaningful differences between the two constructs. These findings could suggest that the degree to which mutual enjoyment is experienced and expressed by dyads reflects broader normative developmental processes that lead to natural declines in mutual enjoyment across mother–child dyads with low incomes in the general population (e.g., children's increased autonomy seeking or oppositionality; Askan et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]; Kuczynski et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref83">37</reflink>]; Shaw and Bell [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>]; Wenar [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]). Affective mutuality, on the other hand, may be more sensitive to the unique co‐regulatory capacities of individual dyads above and beyond a child's normative developmental capabilities, leading to greater inter‐dyad variability in the construct. In other words, mutual enjoyment might be shaped by experiences common to most lower‐income children in this developmental period, whereas affective mutuality may reflect a more complex, dyad‐specific patterning of responsiveness and coordination.</p> <p>Alternatively, it could also be the case that differences in the way in which affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment change across time and vary between dyads are more a reflection of the contexts in which we measured these dyadic constructs. At 6 months, the only task that dyads participated in was a structured free‐play task—an activity that is not meant to pose challenges for the dyad. However, at 18 and 24 months, dyads participated in a clean‐up task and two teaching tasks in addition to free play. Relative to free play, these three additional tasks are more structured, are designed to pose a little bit of challenge for the dyad, and do not naturally elicit as much enjoyment from the dyad. As such, the consistent decline from 6 to 24 months that we observe in mutual enjoyment across dyads could at least partially be a function of task‐level constraints imposed by the study rather than a true reflection of how mutual enjoyment evolves across early childhood. At the same time, from a dyadic systems perspective (Fogel [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]), these challenges are not only measurement confounds but also provide evolving contexts in which dyadic coordination and mutuality are actively negotiated, revealing the capacity of the relationship to flexibly respond to changing situational demands which might have been better captured by affective mutuality.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-22">Predicting Problem Behavior</hd> <p>In the present study, we also found that affective mutuality at 6 months and its growth from 6 to 24 months were predictive of child internalizing, but not externalizing, problems at 48 months. The specificity of this finding was surprising considering how highly related internalizing and externalizing problems were in the present study and in previous work (Gilliom and Shaw [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]). It is consistent, however, with theories on the development of internalizing difficulties, which propose that socioemotional adjustment is a product of transactions between children's temperament, experiences with caregivers, and the greater context in which a child is raised (Rubin and Mills [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref88">55</reflink>]). Parent–child relationships marked by emotional availability and security are thought to instill a confidence in children that helps them in novel social situations and better understand their internal experiences. When a parent can effectively recognize, label, and respond to a child's internal experiences, it models to a child how they may tap into their own internal resources to modulate their arousal states as the necessary cognitive and motor capacities "come online," potentially mitigating the chances of developing significant internalizing problems. The present findings support this theoretical conceptualization in that higher early affective mutuality (i.e., the degree to which mother–child dyads demonstrate emotional expressiveness and acceptance) was related to lower internalizing problems for children at age four.</p> <p>This set of findings is particularly notable for two reasons. First, affective mutuality at 6 months related to internalizing behavior 3.5 years later. Considering how rapidly children's abilities, needs, and challenges shift during very early childhood, it can be difficult to identify constructs in infancy that significantly and meaningfully relate to children's future behavior. This finding might speak to the added predictive utility of parent–child dyadic dimensions above independently assessed parent or child features. Second, we found that growth in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months predicted internalizing problems at 48 months above and beyond initial levels of affective mutuality. Namely, the greater the increases in affective mutuality that a dyad demonstrated between 6 and 24 months, the fewer internalizing concerns a child showed at age 4. Thus, internalizing problems among children of low‐income families might not only be related to the degree that dyads demonstrate affective mutuality in infancy, but also the degree to which a dyad is able to increase their emotional attunement as children develop improved capacities for communicating and increased desire for autonomy.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-23">Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions</hd> <p>Strengths of the present study include the use of a longitudinal design with three waves of observed dyadic measures to assess change in dyadic characteristics of the parent–child relationship across very early childhood, and the use of a different informant and method to predict child problem behavior at age four. These study methods permitted us to explore whether changes in dyadic dimensions across very early childhood predicted child functioning above and beyond these features at single timepoints. Despite these strengths, the present study had several limitations that are important to note. First, the tasks that dyads engaged in across timepoints did not remain constant, limiting the generalizations that we can make about the way in which affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment develop across early childhood. Relatedly, we did not find significant inter‐dyad variability in initial levels or growth in mutual enjoyment, which precluded us from testing whether either growth factor of mutual enjoyment related to children's problem behavior. Thus, it will be important for future work to use developmentally appropriate but comparable tasks across timepoints to determine whether the present findings replicate and to test whether mutual enjoyment in early childhood predicts later problem behavior.</p> <p>Second, while the coders of our Spanish‐speaking recordings were primarily Latine, most of our English‐speaking coders were neither Black nor Latine. Emerging work on diversity, equity, and inclusion in observational assessment emphasizes the importance of including coders on the team whose identities and previous experiences align with participants', as these shared experiences can provide a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the behaviors and communication styles within the communities being studied (Kaplan and Tidwell et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>]). While we were able to generally achieve this alignment for our Spanish‐speaking families, that was not the case with our English‐speaking families. Thus, it will be important for future work to prioritize recruiting coders whose social identities better align with the families recruited to ensure that parent–child dynamics are being accurately captured through the coding process.</p> <p>Third, the directionality of the relationship between affective mutuality and internalizing behaviors cannot be determined from the present study. Although affective mutuality was measured prior to internalizing problems, it might be the case that children with greater internalizing problems at age 4 were already displaying such behaviors in very early childhood. One might imagine that a highly inhibited, reserved child could be more difficult to be affectively attuned to as a caregiver. Thus, this negative relationship between affective mutuality and internalizing problems could be driven by the challenges in connecting with such an infant more than a reflection of emerging affective mutuality between mother and child. While we attempted to account for this as best as we could in the present study design by controlling for infant difficult emotionality in our models, it is likely the case that this construct does not fully capture or account for early child internalizing problems. Moreover, internalizing problems were captured via maternal report in the present study. Thus, it could be the case that correlations between early affective mutuality and later child internalizing problems were driven by underlying maternal characteristics that contribute to both mother's interactions with their children and perceptions of their children's behavior (e.g., maternal psychopathology). To address this concern, future work should leverage experimental designs to examine whether manipulating affective mutuality among caregiver‐child dyads results in differing levels of internalizing behaviors and should consider assessing children's internalizing behavior from a variety of informants (e.g., teachers) or assessed via structured clinical interviews. If the present findings are replicated, the results could have important implications for the development of interventions centered around parent–child relational health in very early childhood.</p> <p>Fourth, the present study solely focuses on mother–child dyads, despite the documented importance of other caregivers in children's lives. Future work would benefit from being more inclusive of other caregivers, such as fathers and grandparents, to examine whether the present findings generalize to other caregiver‐child relationships.</p> <p>Finally, the present study's focus on low‐income, predominantly Black and Latine mother–child dyads living in urban settings precludes us from confidently generalizing these results to the general population. Although a strength of the current study, as lower‐income, racially and ethnically minoritized families have historically been underrepresented in the parent–child relationship literature, it will be important for future research to examine whether the present findings generalize to families with moderate to high levels of income and families with lower incomes that live in non‐urban settings.</p> <p>Despite these important caveats, the present study provides support for the importance of studying qualities of very early parent–child relationships and their emerging trajectories on preschool‐aged children's internalizing problem behavior. Our findings point to the importance of conducting work in which the dyad is the unit of study and to consider the ways in which changes in the parent–child relationship may themselves be important indicators for children's future behavioral problems. If replicated in future studies, the present findings could have important implications regarding when and how to intervene with mother–child dyads to reduce children's emerging internalizing problems. Namely, it may be particularly important for early childhood interventions to target dyadic emotional expressiveness and connectedness (beginning as early as 6 months) and to focus on <emph>improving</emph> the expressiveness and connectedness of dyads as children develop. Lastly, the present study highlights the importance and utility of examining positive, affective parent–child relationship qualities on children's behavioral outcomes among primarily low‐income, racially and ethnically diverse samples.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-24">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD076390).</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-25">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186954508-26">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley Data at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/6w88xmcv9m/1. Data, analysis code, and study materials are available upon request to the senior author DSS (danielshaw@upmc.edu).</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting File 1: sode70011‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx</p> <ref id="AN0186954508-27"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref75" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD076390).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186954508-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M., and L. A. Rescorla. 2001. Manual for ASEBA School Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ackerman, B. P., J. Kegos, E. Youngstrom, K. Schoff, and C. Izard. 1999. " Family Instability and the Problem Behaviors of Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families." Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1 : 258 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Askan, N., G. Kochanska, and M. R. Ortmann. 2006. " Mutually Responsive Orientation between Parents and Their Young Children: Toward Methodological Advances in the Science of Relationships." Developmental Psychology 42, no. 5 : 833 – 848.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref76" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, J. E., C. A. Freeland, and M. L. Lounsbury. 1979. " Measurement of Infant Difficultness." Child Development 50 : 794 – 803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baumrind, D. 1978. " Reciprocal Rights and Responsibilities in Parent Child Relations." Journal of Social Issues 34, no. 2 : 179 – 196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berthelon, M., D. Contreras, D. Kruger, and M. I. Palma. 2020. " Harsh Parenting During Early Childhood and Child Development." Economics & Human Biology 36 : 100831.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref69" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Biringen, Z., J. L. Robinson, and R. N. Emde. 1994. " Maternal Sensitivity in the Second Year: Gender Based Relations in the Dyadic Balance of Control." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 64, no. 1 : 78 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bornstein, M. H., and D. L. Putnick. 2021. " Dyadic Development in the family: Stability in Mother–Child Relationship Quality from Infancy to Adolescence." Journal of Family Psychology 35, no. 4 : 445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref31" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brody, G. H., and D. L. Flor. 1998. " Maternal Resources, Parenting Practices, and Child Competence in Rural, Single Parent African American Families." Child Development 69, no. 3 : 803 – 816.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carreras, J., A. S. Carter, A. Heberle, A. Forbes, and S. A. O. Gray. 2019. " Emotion Regulation and Parent Distress: Getting at the Heart of Sensitive Parenting Among Parents of Preschool Children Experiencing High Sociodemographic Risk." Journal of Child and Family Studies 28 : 2953 – 2962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, R. 1999. " The Parent Child Early Relational Assessment: A Factorial Validity Study." Educational & Psychological Measurement 59, no. 5 : 821 – 846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohn, J. F., and E. Z. Tronick. 1987. " Mother–Infant Face to Face Interaction: The Sequence of Dyadic States at 3, 6, and 9 Months." Developmental Psychology 23, no. 1 : 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deater Deckard, K., and S. A. Petrill. 2004. " Parent Child Dyadic Mutuality and Child Behavior Problems: An Investigation of Gene Environment Processes." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, no. 6 : 1171 – 1179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denham, S. A., D. Zoller, and E. A. Couchoud. 1994. " Socialization of Preschoolers' Emotion Understanding." Developmental Psychology 30, no. 6 : 928 – 936.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domenech Rodríguez, M. M., M. R. Donovick, and S. L. Crowley. 2009. " Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context: Observations of "Protective Parenting" in First Generation Latinos." Family Process 48, no. 2 : 195 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domitrovich, C. E., and K. L. Bierman. 2001. " Parenting Practices and Child Social Adjustment: Multiple Pathways of Influence." Merrill Palmer Quarterly 47, no. 2 : 235 – 263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunbar, A. S., E. M. Leerkes, S. I. Coard, A. J. Supple, and S. Calkins. 2017. " An Integrative Conceptual Model of Parental Racial/Ethnic and Emotion Socialization and Links to Children's Social‐Emotional Development among African American Families." Child Development Perspectives 11, no. 1 : 16 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, R. C., and S. L. Hans. 2015. " Infant Risk Factors Associated with Internalizing, Externalizing, and Co‐Occurring Behavior Problems in Young Children." Developmental Psychology 51, no. 4 : 489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fay Stammbach, T., D. J. Hawes, and P. Meredith. 2014. " Parenting Influences on Executive Function in Early Childhood: A Review." Child Development Perspectives 8, no. 4 : 258 – 264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, R. 2007. " Mother Infant Synchrony and the Development of Moral Orientation in Childhood and Adolescence: Direct and Indirect Mechanisms of Developmental Continuity." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77, no. 4 : 582 – 597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, R., C. W. Greenbaum, and N. Yirmiya. 1999. " Mother–Infant Affect Synchrony as an Antecedent of the Emergence of Self Control." Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1 : 223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fogel, A. 1993. Developing Through Relationships. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foss, S., C. R. Petty, and C. Howell, et al. 2023. " Associations Among Maternal Lifetime Trauma, Psychological Symptoms in Pregnancy, and Infant Stress Reactivity and Regulation." Development and Psychopathology 35, no. 4 : 1714 – 1731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funamoto, A., and C. M. Rinaldi. 2015. " Measuring Parent Child Mutuality: A Review of Current Observational Coding Systems." Infant Mental Health Journal 36, no. 1 : 3 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gianino, A., and E. Z. Tronick. 2013. " The Mutual Regulation Model: The Infant's Self and Interactive Regulation and Coping and Defensive capacities." In Stress and Coping across Development (47 – 68). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilliom, M., and D. S. Shaw. 2004. " Codevelopment of Externalizing and Internalizing Problems in Early Childhood." Development and Psychopathology 16, no. 2 : 313 – 333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, S. A. O., J. G. Miller, E. B. Glackin, V. Hatch, and S. S. Drury. 2024. " Parent Child Relationship Quality Buffers the Association Between Mothers' Adverse Childhood Experiences and Physiological Synchrony." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 66, no. 7 : 956 – 966.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutman, L. M., and L. Feinstein. 2010. " Parenting Behaviours and Children's Development from Infancy to Early Childhood: Changes, Continuities, and Contributions." Early Child Development and Care 180, no. 4 : 535 – 556.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrist, A. W., G. S. Pettit, K. A. Dodge, and J. E. Bates. 1994. " Dyadic Synchrony in Mother Child Interaction: Relation with Children's Subsequent Kindergarten Adjustment." Family Relations 43, no. 4 : 417 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrist, A. W., and R. M. Waugh. 2002. " Dyadic Synchrony: Its Structure and Function in Children's Development." Developmental Review 22, no. 4 : 555 – 592.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter, S. 2012. " Emerging Self Processes during Childhood and adolescence." In Handbook of Self and Identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney, 2nd ed., 680 – 715. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones Harden, B., N. Denmark, A. Holmes, and M. Duchene. 2014. " Detached Parenting and Toddler Problem Behavior in Early Head Start Families." Infant Mental Health Journal 35, no. 6 : 529 – 543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, D. M., C. A. Tidwell, J. M. Chung, et al. 2023. " Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity in Observational Ambulatory Assessment: Recommendations From two Decades of Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) Research." Behavior Research Methods 56, no. 4 : 3207 – 3225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, S., and L. Bumpass. 2008. " Cohabitation and Children's Living Arrangements: New Estimates from the United States." Demographic Research 19 : 1663 – 1692.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kochanska, G., and N. Aksan. 1995. " Mother‐Child Mutually Positive Affect, the Quality of Child Compliance to Requests and Prohibitions, and Maternal Control as Correlates of Early Internalization." Child Development 66, no. 1 : 236 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kochanska, G., N. Aksan, T. R. Prisco, and E. E. Adams. 2008. " Mother Child and Father Child Mutually Responsive Orientation in the First 2 Years and Children's Outcomes at Preschool Age: Mechanisms of Influence." Child Development 79, no. 1 : 30 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuczynski, L., G. Kochanska, M. Radke Yarrow, and O. Girnius Brown. 1987. " A Developmental Interpretation of Young Children's Noncompliance." Developmental Psychology 23, no. 6 : 799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laible, D. J., and R. A. Thompson. 2000. " Mother–Child Discourse, Attachment Security, Shared Positive Affect, and Early Conscience Development." Child Development 71, no. 5 : 1424 – 1440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leclère, C., S. Viaux, and M. Avril, et al. 2014. " Why Synchrony Matters During Mother Child Interactions: A Systematic Review." PLoS ONE 9, no. 12 : e113571.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leve, L. D., D. Anderson, and G. T. Harold. et al. 2022. " Developmental Profiles of Child Behavior Problems from 18 Months to 8 Years: The Protective Effects of Structured Parenting Vary by Genetic Risk." Development and Psychopathology 34, no. 5 : 1716 – 1730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, C. R., B. S. Russell, E. B. Donohue, and L. E. Racine. 2016. " Mother Child Interactions and Preschoolers' Emotion Regulation Outcomes: Nurturing Autonomous Emotion Regulation." Journal of Child and Family Studies 26 : 559 – 573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsey, E. W. 2022. " Shared Positive Emotion During Parent Toddler Play and Parent and Child Well Being in Mexican Origin Families." Infant Behavior and Development 67 : 101706.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsey, E. W., and Y. M. Caldera. 2015. " Shared Affect and Dyadic Synchrony Among Secure and Insecure Parent–Toddler Dyads." Infant and Child Development 24, no. 4 : 394 – 413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsey, E. W., J. Mize, and G. S. Pettit. 1997. " Mutuality in Parent Child Play: Consequences for Children's Peer Competence." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14, no. 4 : 523 – 538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorber, M. F., and B. Egeland. 2009. " Infancy Parenting and Externalizing Psychopathology from Childhood Through Adulthood: Developmental Trends." Developmental Psychology 45, no. 4 : 909.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunkenheimer, E. S., S. L. Olson, T. Hollenstein, A. J. Sameroff, and C. Winter. 2011. " Dyadic Flexibility and Positive Affect in Parent–Child Coregulation and the Development of Child Behavior Problems." Development and Psychopathology 23, no. 2 : 577 – 591.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, C., P. J. Dunham, and P. Dunham. 2014. Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, G. A., C. J. Powers, and A. J. Bass. et al. 2013. " Dyadic Interaction: Greater than the Sum of Its Parts? " Infancy 18, no. 4 : 490 – 515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 1998–2017. Mplus User's Guide. 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neppl, T. K., S. Jeon, O. Diggs, and M. B. Donnellan. 2020. " Positive Parenting, Effortful Control, and Developmental Outcomes across Early Childhood." Developmental Psychology 56, no. 3 : 444 – 457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 1999. " Child Care and Mother Child Interaction in the First Three Years of Life." Developmental Psychology 35, no. 6 : 1399 – 1413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettit, G. S., and S. Loulis. 1997. " Introduction to Special Issue: Reciprocity and Bidirectionality in Parent Child Relationships: New Approaches to the Study of Enduring Issues." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14, no. 4 : 435 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis, H. T., W. A. Collins, and E. Berscheid. 2000. " Relationships in Human Behavior and Development." Psychological Bulletin 126 : 844 – 872.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reuben, J., D. S. Shaw, J. M. Neiderhiser, M. Natsuaki, D. Reiss, and L. D. Leve. 2016. " Warm Parenting and Effortful Control in Toddlerhood: Independent and Interactive Predictors of School Age Externalizing Behavior." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 44 : 1083 – 1096.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H., and R. S. Mills. 1991. " Conceptualizing Developmental Pathways to Internalizing Disorders in Childhood." Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement 23, no. 3 : 300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sameroff, A. 2009. " The Transactional model." In The Transactional Model of Development: How Children and Contexts Shape each Other, edited by A. Sameroff, 3 – 21, American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sano, Y., S. Mammen, and M. Houghten. 2021. " Well Being and Stability among Low Income Families: A 10 Year Review of Research." Journal of Family and Economic Issues 42 : 107 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, D. S., and R. Q. Bell. 1993. " Developmental Theories of Parental Contributors to Antisocial Behavior." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 21, no. 5 : 493 – 518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, D. S., A. L. Mendelsohn, and P. A. Morris. 2021. " Reducing Poverty Related Disparities in Child Development and School Readiness: The Smart Beginnings Tiered Prevention Strategy That Combines Pediatric Primary Care with Home Visiting." Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 24 : 669 – 683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sitnick, S. L., D. S. Shaw, and A. Gill. et al. 2015. " Parenting and the Family Check Up: Changes in Observed Parent Child Interaction Following Childhood Intervention." Journal of Child Clinical & Adolescent Psychology 44, no. 6 : 970 – 984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sosinsky, L., S. Markovitz, and A. Carter. 2004. Parent–Child Interaction Rating Scales (PCIRS). Unpublished manual. University of Massachusetts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, D. N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant. Basic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tamis‐LeMonda, C., V. Rodriguez, J. Shannon, B. Hannibal, P. Ahuja, and M. Spellmann. 2002. Caregiver Child Affect, Responsiveness, and Engagement Scale (C CARES) Fourteen Month Version. New York University. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=29204deac0658d21fed361b4eecb7e94373846a1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenar, C. 1982. " On Negativism." Human Development 25, no. 1 : 1 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, K. E., and D. Berthelsen. 2017. " The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood: Contributions of Early Parenting and Self Regulation." International Journal of Early Childhood 49 : 73 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Julia A. Gajewski‐Nemes; Pamela A. Morris‐Perez; Alan L. Mendelsohn and Daniel S. Shaw</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref89"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1478629
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Growth in Early Mother-Child Dyadic Qualities and Relations to Preschool Problem Behavior
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julia+A%2E+Gajewski-Nemes%22">Julia A. Gajewski-Nemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pamela+A%2E+Morris-Perez%22">Pamela A. Morris-Perez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alan+L%2E+Mendelsohn%22">Alan L. Mendelsohn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+S%2E+Shaw%22">Daniel S. Shaw</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Development%22"><i>Social Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: HD076390
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Infant+Behavior%22">Infant Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Groups%22">Low Income Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Education%22">Parent Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Readiness%22">School Readiness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/sode.70011
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0961-205X<br />1467-9507
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The importance of the parent-child relationship during early childhood (i.e., 0-5 years) on children's socioemotional functioning has been extensively documented in the literature. However, limited work has examined the degree to which dyadic features of the parent-child relationship changes over the course of early childhood and whether growth in these features relate to children's functioning. The present study aimed to address this limitation by examining change trajectories of dyadic affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment during the first 2 years of life and whether these trajectories were associated with child problem behavior at age four. The sample was comprised of 374 low-income, infant-mother dyads recruited for an efficacy trial of a tiered parenting program designed to promote school readiness. Affective mutuality and mutual enjoyment were assessed via coded interaction tasks between mothers and their infants at 6, 18, and 24 months. Mothers reported on children's internalizing and externalizing problem behavior at 48 months. Results from latent growth curve analysis revealed dyads' affective mutuality significantly increased, and mutual enjoyment significantly decreased, from 6 to 24 months. Initial levels and positive change in affective mutuality from 6 to 24 months were both negatively associated with child internalizing problems, but not externalizing problems, at 48 months. These findings emphasize the importance of conducting work that conceptualizes the dyad as the unit of study and explores how changes in the parent-child relationship may themselves be important indicators for children's future functioning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/6w88xmcv9m/1
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1478629
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1478629
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/sode.70011
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Infant Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Readiness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Growth in Early Mother-Child Dyadic Qualities and Relations to Preschool Problem Behavior
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Julia A. Gajewski-Nemes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pamela A. Morris-Perez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alan L. Mendelsohn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel S. Shaw
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0961-205X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-9507
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1