It needs to start as a conversation amongst parents to model positive behavior, and addressing those initial questions of curiosity from young ones about not just alcohol, but adult
vs. child behavior.
Not exact matches
«It is so powerful when you start helping families to think about the kind of person they hope for their
children to become when they grow up,
vs. the
behaviors and qualities they are actually teaching their
children.»
Other studies examining the mediating role of income include: Elizabeth Thomson, Thomas L. Hanson, and Sara S. McLanahan, «Family Structure and
Child Well - Being: Economic Resources
vs. Parental
Behavior,» Social Forces 73 (1994): 221 — 42; Brown, «Family Structure and
Child Well - Being» (see note 7); Osborne, McLanahan and Brooks - Gunn, «Young
Children's Behavioral Problems in Married and Cohabiting Families» (see note 9).
Couple Premarital
Behavior and Dynamics We examined 14
behaviors and dynamics related to the focal relationship as predictors of marital quality: age at marriage, length of relationship before marriage, whether the couple had a
child or were pregnant together before marriage, whether they began their relationship with hooking up, whether the respondent had sexual relations with someone else while dating his / her future spouse or knew that his / her partner had, whether the respondent reported any physical aggression in the relationship before marriage, whether the couple cohabited before making a mutual commitment to marry, the degree to which the respondent reported sliding into living together
vs. deciding to do so, whether the respondent perceived that he or she was more or less committed than the partner before marriage, whether the couple received premarital education, and whether the couple had a wedding, as well as how many people attended the wedding.
Results indicate significant interactions between treatment conditions (NFPP
vs. HNC) and
child ODD diagnosis (presence
vs. absence) indicated that based on some parent and teacher reports, HNC was more effective with disruptive
behaviors than NFPP but only when
children had a comorbid diagnosis.
Considered especially important was (a) taking into account confounding
child, parent and family background factors that could be responsible for any putative
child care effects; (a) distinguishing and disentangling potential effects of distinctive features of the
child - care experience, particularly quality, quantity and type of care (e.g., center - based
vs. home - based); and (b) determining whether day care was associated with less separation distress in the SSP or independent
behavior was mischaracterized as avoidant
behavior.
This study examines the contribution of specific types of family violence exposure (e.g., victim
vs. witness; physical
vs. psychological) to aggressive and anxious / depressed problem
behaviors in young (i.e., 6 - year - old) at - risk
children.
The effect sizes (pre - to post-treatment) found for
child behavior outcomes in the current study are larger than those reported in traditional PCIT: observed compliance d = 0.61 — 0.94 (traditional PCIT)
vs. d = 1.67 (current study I - PCIT); parent report of EBP d = 1.31 — 1.45 (traditional PCIT)
vs. d = 2.50 (current study I - PCIT).
The authors focused on global, overarching codes of mother —
child interaction
behavior (e.g., negative
vs. positive); therefore, it could not provide information about specific mother —
child interaction
behaviors that may be most indicative of depressive mothers» parenting and may have direct implications for prevention and intervention efforts.
The main study objectives were to describe and / or evaluate parent -
child interactions through micro-interest or validation of synchrony assessment tools; to compare the quality of interactions according to infants» characteristics: term
vs. pre-term or typical development
vs. pathology (aggressive
behavior; ADHD; Down syndrome; autism); and to compare the quality of interactions among parents experiencing pathology (depression; psychosis)
vs. healthy controls.
Overall,
children with deviant eating
behavior reported higher perceived parental control [2.82 (0.79)
vs. 2.52 (0.74)-RSB- than
children with normal eating
behavior, t = − 3.81, df = 366, p <.001, d =.39, slightly less perceived confidence [3.18 (0.51)
vs. 3.31 (0.43)-RSB-, t = 2.52, df = 366, p =.012, d =.27, and higher conflict / rejection [1.99 (0.61)
vs. 1.60 (0.49)-RSB-, t = − 6.80, df = 366, p <.001, d =.68, while no group differences were apparent for the care and lack of limitations subscales.
Additionally, studies investigating the mediating effect of observed mother —
child interaction
behaviors have examined mother —
child interaction as a broad concept (e.g., negative
vs. positive), and did not focus on specific types of interaction
behaviors (Burt et al. 2005).
In our study, the association between Openness and «Owner Warmth» as well as «Owner Control» seems to reflect a similar contribution to how this personality dimension is linked to parental
behavior, while the negative association between Conscientiousness and «Owner Social Support» suggests a different link between Conscientiousness and the way in which owners
vs. parents interact with their dogs or
children in stressful situations.