Child Development, January/February 2008, Volume 79, Number 1, Pages 30 – 44

Mother –Child and Father –Child Mutually Responsive Orientation

in the First 2 Years and Children’s Outcomes at Preschool Age:

Mechanisms of Influence

Grazyna Kochanska, Nazan Aksan, Theresa R. Prisco, and Erin E. AdamsUniversity of Iowa

Mechanisms accounting for the effects of mutually responsive orientation (MRO) at 7, 15, and 25 months in 102mother – child and father – child dyads on child internalization and self-regulation at 52 months were examined.Two mediators at 38 months were tested: parental power assertion and child self-representation. For mother –child relationships, the causal pathway involving power assertion was supported for both outcomes. Diminishedpower assertion fully mediated beneficial effect of mother – child MRO on internalization and partially mediatedits effect on self-regulation. For father – child relationships, MRO predicted self-regulation, but the mediationalpaths were unsupported. Paternal power assertion correlated negatively with both outcomes but was notamediator. AlthoughMROwith both parents correlatedwith child self-representation, and it correlatedwith self-regulation, this mediational path was unsupported.

Early parent – child relationships are usually consid-ered important contexts for children’s development,although this assumption has been both disputed anddefended (Collins & Laursen, 1999; Collins, Maccoby,Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Harris,1998). The controversy notwithstanding, most social-ization researchers believe that variations in thequality of those early relationships systematicallyrelate to future developmental outcomes. Develop-mental research reflects the ascending ‘‘science ofrelationships,’’ a perspective that has been surgingin psychology more broadly.

In our work on the parent – child relationship, wehave proposed a construct of mutually responsive orien-tation (MRO; Kochanska, 1997, 2002; Kochanska, For-man, Aksan, & Dunbar, 2005). MRO is a positive,mutually binding, and mutually cooperative relation-ship that evolves in some parent – child dyads. Wefurther proposed that the extent towhich a given dyaddevelops MRO has important implications for thechild’s future socialization outcomes.

The construct of MRO was grounded in severalhistorical traditions: attachment theory, rooted inBowlby’s (1969/1982, 1973, 1980) relationship-basedapproach; Maccoby’s (1983, 1999, 2007) concepts ofmutuality and reciprocity in the parent – child dyad;and Clark’s (1984) construct of ‘‘communal relation-ships.’’ Recently, Bugental and Goodnow (1998) andBugental and Grusec (2006) have proposed a separatemutuality domain within the parent – child relation-ship, an approach consistent with our constructof MRO.

While incorporating elements of those traditions,our concept of MRO emphasizes the mutual, bidirec-tional, and reciprocal qualities of the ‘‘cooperativeinterpersonal set’’—the parent’s and the child’s inter-nalized sense of shared willingness to cooperate witheach other and to be receptive and responsive to eachother overtures, bids, and subtle cues. We also stressthe importance of shared positive affect and ‘‘goodtimes’’ and mutually coordinated enjoyable routines.

In our earlier work, we focused on two majorcomponents of MRO: mutual responsiveness andshared ‘‘good times’’ between the parent and thechild (Kochanska, 1997). Mutual responsiveness,stressed in theories of close relationships, includingthe attachment theory, promotes trust, security, mutualbond, sense of agency and efficacy, empathy, andexpectations of reciprocity. Shared positive affect,joint activities infused with positive emotion in bothpartners, although less studied, have also been stressed

Nazan Aksan is currently at Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey;however, this study was accomplished in its entirety while she wasat the University of Iowa. This research has been sponsored by thegrants from NIMH, RO1 MH63096, and KO2 MH01446 to the firstauthor. We greatly appreciate the contributions of many studentsand staff to data collection and coding, and particularly SarahBenson, Lea Boldt, JenniferCarlson,Amanda Friesenborg, AmandaHollatz, Krista Kohl, Lindsey Lange, Michelle Martell, KateNichols, Margaret Ortmann, Sara Penney, and Ryan Schiffer. Wealso thank the participants in the Family Study for their enthusiasticcommitment to this research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toGrazyna Kochanska, Department of Psychology, University ofIowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407. Electronic mail may be sent tograzyna-kochanska@uiowa.edu.

# 2008, Copyright the Author(s)

Journal Compilation# 2008, Society for Research inChildDevelopment, Inc.

All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2008/7901-0003

by many (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978;Dix, 1991; Emde, Biringen, Clyman, & Oppenheim,1991; Lay, Waters, & Park, 1989; Maccoby & Martin,1983; Radke-Yarrow, Richters, & Wilson, 1988).

That earlier work repeatedly showed that MRO,coded during naturalistic interactions of parents andchildren at infant, toddler, and preschool age, hadpositive implications for multiple aspects of child-ren’s conscience, concurrently and longitudinally,across multiple ages, types of assessments, and con-texts (Kochanska, 1997, 2002; Kochanska, Forman, &Coy, 1999; Kochanska & Murray, 2000; Kochanskaet al., 2005). Extensive research is consistent with, andindeed has often explicitly replicated, those findings.Many scholars have studied broadly ranging positiveimplications of constructs closely related to MRO.Such constructs include parental responsiveness, rec-iprocity, mutuality, and dyadic synchrony (Bryant &Crockenberg, 1980; Criss, Shaw, & Ingoldsby, 2003;Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; De Wolff & vanIJzendoorn, 1997; Gardner, Ward, Burton, & Wilson,2003; Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Laible & Thompson,2000; Lytton, 1980; Maccoby, 1999; Martin, 1981;Parpal & Maccoby, 1985; Rocissano, Slade, & Lynch,1987; Shaw, 2003; Shaw, Keenan, & Vondra, 1994;Thompson, 2006; Westerman, 1990).

The measures of MRO in our early work wereproduced by aggregating qualities of individual pa-rents and children, assessed using various observa-tional coding systems (Kochanska, 1997; Kochanskaet al., 2005). Those measures had several shortcom-ings. First, they were extraordinarily labor intensive.Each individual, parent and child, at each assessment,was coded by multiple teams, during many hours ofinteraction, using two responsiveness coding systems(micro- andmacroscopic) and a detailed affect codingsystem. Second, those measures targeted separateindividuals rather than the dyad. Many scholars(e.g., Hinde, 1999; Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000)have argued that capturing the dyad is a superiorapproach to the study of relationships.

In this study, we code MRO using a new, muchless labor-intensive approach (Aksan, Kochanska, &Ortmann, 2006). Additionally, the new coding systemexplicitly captures a dyadic level of the quality of parent –child interaction rather than inferring dyadic qualitiesof MRO from behaviors and emotions of the parentand the child. Further, the new system also explicitlyarticulates four basic dyadic components of MRO inthe parent – child dyad: coordinated routines, harmo-nious communication, mutual cooperation, and emo-tional ambiance.

Having amply established the empirical correla-tions between MRO and positive developmental out-

comes, we next addressed the mediating mechanismsthat account for those links (Kochanska et al., 2005). Ina longitudinally followed sample (different from thecurrent one), we tested causal mediational paths frommother – child MRO, assessed between 9 and 22months, to children’s positive outcomes, includingmoral conduct at 56 months. Early MRO influencedlater moral conduct by promoting both the child’senjoyment of interactions with the mother and thechild’s self-regulated, ‘‘committed’’ compliance. EarlyMROalso led toa reduction inmothers’powerassertion,and that, in turn, led to more internalized conduct. Thislatter path, however, was not significant when all themediators were examined together; thus, the findingsregardingmaternal power assertionwere ambiguous.

The current article extends the past research in fiverespects. First and foremost, we adopt the ecologicalperspective to examine MRO and its implications. Tothat effect, we study both the mother – child and thefather – child relationships, and examine, within eachrelationship, MRO between the child and the givenparent, aswell as the child’s internalization of the rulearticulated by this parent.

The knowledge of fathers’ early parenting contin-ues to be vastly incomplete. Some reviews suggestthat fathers are less responsive and less involved inparenting than mothers (Parke & Buriel, 2006); someconclude that both parents can be equally responsivebut that their styles of interactingwith young childrenare quite different (Parke, 2002).

We know even less about the effects of paternalinfluence, particularly regarding children’smoral andself-regulated conduct. Behavioral data on mothers’and fathers’ roles in children’s moral development arepractically nonexistent (Hastings, Utendale, & Sulli-van, 2007). Psychoanalytic theoryproposed that fathershave a critical role in children’s moral development;this claim, however, has rarely been empirically tested.Very few moral development studies utilized observa-tional data from mothers and fathers (e.g., Walker &Taylor, 1991). Our own work with earlier samples hadbeen subject to the same shortcoming, as it hadincluded only mothers. The findings described in thecurrent article come from our first longitudinal studythat involved both parents. Our working assumptionwas that, as inmother – childdyads, father – childMROwould promote children’s positive developmental out-comes and that the mechanisms that account for thoseeffects would be similar for both parents.

Second, we expand the studied outcomes beyondchild conscience or internalization. We continue thisfocus, expanding it to the child’s internalization ofboth parents’ values, to examine internalizationwithin a specific relationship. We also, however,

Mechanisms of MRO 31

extend the range of studied outcomes to include thechild’s more general capacity for self-regulation. Thedeliberate capacity to regulate one’s own conduct isamong the most commonly accepted goals of social-ization (Kopp, 1982; Kopp & Wyer, 1994). In thesecond year, children begin to develop the ability tosuppress a predominant action—often the one thechild most desires at the moment—and to performinstead a subdominant response, often mundane orunappealing but required by socialization agents. Thegrowth of self-regulation has been linked to manyfactors: the maturation of the brain, attention devel-opment, child temperament, and the parent – childrelationship (Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Kochanska,Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Posner & Rothbart, 2000;Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Nevertheless, socializationantecedents of self-regulation are not well under-stood, and they have been increasingly attractingattention (Maccoby, 2007).

Third, we examine twomediators, both assessed at38 months. One is parental power assertion. We ex-pected that in dyads that have developed high MRO,parents would not need to resort to forceful disciplineto accomplish their disciplinary goals. Indeed, inanother sample, in mutually responsive dyads, moth-ers used less power in control encounters, both concur-rently and longitudinally (Kochanska, 1997;Kochanskaet al., 1999) and across observed and self-reportedpower measures. In turn, a large body of research,including ours (Kochanska, Padavich, &Koenig, 1996),has shown that power assertion uniformly interfereswith internalization and self-regulation. Power asser-tion results in the child’s shallow processing of theparental message (Hoffman, 1983), external attribu-tions for compliance (Lepper, 1981), perception of a‘‘threat to autonomy’’ (Grusec&Goodnow, 1994), andresentment and anger toward the parent. Conse-quently, it leads to a rejection of the parent’s values.Thus, we posited that a diminished use of parentalpower at age 3may be onemediatingmechanism thatlinks MRO in the first 2 years with better develop-mental outcomes at preschool age. Given that in ourearlier study of another sample (Kochanska et al.,2005) the findings regarding power assertion as amediator of maternal MRO– child internalizationlinks were ambiguous, herewe readdressed this issueand extended it to both parents.

Although less often studied, negative relationsbetween parental power-assertive discipline, direc-tiveness, or negativity, and children’s capacity forself-control or self-regulation have also been reported(Calkins, Smith, Gill, & Johnson, 1998; Power &Chapieski, 1986; Silverman & Ragusa, 1992). Thus,we expected to find a similar mediational path for the

other studied outcome: from MRO, to diminishedpower assertion, to children’s self-regulation.

We further proposed that the child’s self-representationcould alsomediate the links betweenMROand futureoutcomes. Although, to our knowledge, such a chainhas not been tested in its entirety, its elements havebeen proposed both conceptually and empirically.Links between early parent – child relationships andchildren’s self, aswell as between the self and the self-regulated, internalized conduct have been studied.As originally proposed by Bowlby (1988), the child’sself emerges within, and reflects the quality of, theearly parent – child relationship. Secure attachmentand responsive parenting have been shown to instill,support, and enhance aspects of the child’s self(Bretherton &Munholland, 1999; Cassidy, 1988; Pipp,Easterbrooks, & Harmon, 1992; Schneider-Rosen &Cicchetti, 1984).

In turn, the self is often seen as a necessary devel-opmental condition for emerging internalization,such as awareness of standards, emotional responseto wrongdoing, as well as a general capacity forself-regulation (Kagan, 1980, 1984; Lewis, Sullivan,Stanger, & Weiss, 1989; Stipek, Gralinski, & Kopp,1990). Hoffman (1982) linked the child’s emergingsense of being separate from others and being anactive agent to the advent of his or her ability tofeel guilt. Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, andChapman (1992) reported modest concurrent rela-tions between 2-year-olds’ level of self-recognitionand their prosocial response to others. We haveshown that individual differences in the developmentof self at 18 months were positively, thoughmodestly,associatedwith children’s future distress in situationswhen they believed that they had damaged anotherperson’s valuable objects (Kochanska, Gross, Lin, &Nichols, 2002).

Fourth, we use the new, improved dyadic measureof MRO described previously. That coding is appliedto parent – child dyads observed in lengthy natural-istic situations at 7, 15, and 25 months.

The final, fifth extension concerns the analyticapproach. Recent work (MacKinnon, Lockwood,Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes,2004, 2007) has highlighted problems associated withthe traditional, classic regression approach to testingmediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) when the hypoth-eses involve multiple correlated mediators and mul-tiple correlated outcomes. The primary problemwiththe traditional approach is that estimates of themediated indirect effect are often biased in an analyticcontext that does not adjust for the influence of othercorrelated mediators and outcomes; further, the asso-ciated standard errors for the evaluation of indirect

32 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

effects are difficult to obtain when the ordinary leastsquares framework is used. Those difficulties areeasily addressed, however, by adopting a structuralequationmodeling (SEM) frameworkwithmaximumlikelihood estimation. In this work, we estimate andtest the total, direct, and mediated indirect effects inmother – child and father – child relationships usingsaturated models in the SEM framework (Preacher &Hayes, 2007).

Method

Participants

A total of 102 two-parent families of normallydeveloping infants volunteered for the study. Theyresponded to ads in multiple community venues andletters sent to families identified using birth records.They were seen at Time 1 (N 5 102, 51 girls) at7 months (M 5 7.21, SD 5 0.43), at Time 2 (N 5 101,51 girls) at 15months (M5 15.13, SD5 0.42), at Time 3(N5 100, 50 girls) at 25months (M5 25.24,SD5 0.53),at Time 4 (N5 100, 50 girls) at 38 months (M5 38.17,SD 5 1.05), and at Time 5 (N 5 99, 49 girls) at52 months (M 5 52.52, SD 5 1.10).

The families represented a relatively broad rangeof education and income: 24% of mothers and 30% offathers had high school education, 15% of mothersand 18% of fathers had an associate degree, 39% ofmothers and 33% of fathers completed college, and21% of mothers and 20% of fathers had postcollegeeducation. They lived in small- tomedium-size townsand cities and in rural areas in the Midwest. Mostinfants were first (42%) or second (35%) born. Annualfamily income ranged: under $10,000 (2%), $10,001 –$20,000 (6%), $20,001 – $30,000 (9%), $30,001 – $40,000(8%), $40,001 – $50,000 (17%), $50,001 – $60,000 (9%),$60,001 – $70,000 (15%), and over $70,001 (34%).Mothers’ average age was 30.80 years, SD 5 5.30and fathers ‘average age was 32.23 years, SD 5 6.03.In terms of race, 90% of mothers were White, 3%Hispanic, 2%African American, 1%Asian, 1% PacificIslander, and 3% ‘‘other’’ non-White. Among fathers,84%wereWhite, 8% Hispanic, 3% African American,3% Asian, and 2% ‘‘other.’’ In 20% of families, one orboth parents were non-White.

Overview

At Time 1, 7 months, there were two 1.5- to 2-hrhome sessions, onewith each parent (the sessionwiththe mother was first); at Time 2, 15 months, two 2-hrsessions in the university laboratory, again one witheach parent (pseudorandomized order, counterbal-

ancedwith child gender); at Time 3, 25months, two 3-hr laboratory sessions, one with each parent; at Time4, 38 months, two 3-hr sessions, one at home and onein the laboratory, with each parent taking part in halfof each session; and at Time 5, 52 months, two 3-hrlaboratory sessions, one with each parent. The orderofmother versus father sessionswas counterbalancedwithin child gender. All sessions were conducted byfemale staff members (‘‘Es’’). The sessions werevideotaped for future coding. The parents were askedto behave as they naturally would in typical dailyparent – child contexts, such as snack time, play, orbeing busy with other tasks.

The predictor measures of parent – child MROwere obtained at Times 1, 2, and 3 (7, 15, and 25months). The measures of the mediators (observa-tions of parents’ power assertion and children’s self-representations) were obtained at Time 4 (38months).The outcome measures, both parent-specific (internal-ization of each parent’s rules) and a general measureof self-regulation, all observational, were obtained atTime 5 (52 months).

Multiple independent teams were involved incoding parents’ behavior from videotapes. The samecoder did not code both parents from the same family.At least 15%– 20% of cases were used for reliability(more for rare codes). After reliability was estab-lished, coders frequently conducted ‘‘realignmentchecks’’ to prevent observer drift. The numerouscoded variables were substantially aggregated acrosscoded segments, contexts, and occasions of measure-ments to yield final overall constructs (Rushton,Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983).

Predictor Measures, MRO, Times 1, 2, and3 (7, 15, and 25 Months)

Coded contexts. MRO between each parent and thechild was coded in multiple naturalistic contexts atTimes 1, 2, and 3, for approximately 40 – 47min at eachtime of assessment for each parent – child dyad(approximately 270 – 280 min total for each child withboth parents). The contexts (each observed with themother and the father) encompassed: at all assess-ments, play with toys, snack, and parent busy. At7 months, additional contexts included caregivingroutines, play without toys, and parent trying to keepthe child from touching an attractive plastic plant; at 15and 25 months, additional contexts included free timein the lab, an interactive chore, and opening a gift.

Coding. Each parent – child dyad was coded usinga new measure (details, including psychometricqualities and the listing of items, are in Aksan et al.,2006). Coders rated the dyad for each interactive

Mechanisms of MRO 33

context on 16 items at 7 months and on 17 items at 15and 25 months. Each item was scored from 1 to 5. Theitems reflected four theoretically posited componentsof MRO: coordinated routines, mutual cooperation,harmonious communication, andemotional ambiance.

The coders were sensitive to the developmentallychanging expression of those constructs. For example,coordinated routines were defined as follows: ‘‘Theextent to which the dyad displays coordinated activ-ity and settles comfortably into routine activities thatbecome scripted over time. Easy and comfortablecoordination reflects implicit shared procedural ex-pectations.’’ At 7 months, this may be expressed as,for example, the baby and the parent smoothlyinteracting during snack, with the baby seeminglyanticipating the subroutines, opening his mouth asthe parent delivers food on a spoon.At 15months, thismay describe the dyad easily executing a mutuallyorchestrated chain of sitting at a table, child expec-tantly lifting chin to ease the mother’s act of puttingthe bib on,waiting for juice to be poured andyogurt tobe opened, and so on.At 25months, the same smoothlyflowing snack time may routinely include a time ofshared deliberation, with parent and child now bothchoosing food items, child performing more actions,such as opening juice or yogurt, with the parentholding a paper towel at the ready in anticipation ofa minor spill, and so on.

Regarding reliability, the average kappa across allthree assessments was .76. After viewing all thecontexts, the coder also made an additional overalljudgment, again ranging from 1 to 5: ‘‘This dyad hasmutually responsive orientation.’’ The average kappafor this judgment was .84.

Data reduction. There were four steps in datareduction. One, we counted the occurrences of lowscores (1s and 2s) and of high scores (4s and 5s) acrossall contexts for each item. Two, we divided thosefrequencies by the number of interactive contexts inwhich an item was applicable and occurred (to beconsidered applicable, certain items required thatgiven events, e.g., distress, occur). Three, we sub-tracted the relative frequency of low scores from thatof high scores (for reverse-scored items, this operationwas reversed). Those final scores reflected the consis-tency with which high and low responses wereobserved across contexts for each item. For example,a dyad that received a score of 3 for a given item in allsix coded contexts would receive a score of 0, a dyadthat received a score of 5 for a given item in all sixcontexts would receive a score of 1, and a dyad thatreceived a score of 1 for a given item in all six contextswould receive a score of �1. Four, we weighted the‘‘final’’ scores generated in Step 3 by the overall

judgment, ‘‘This dyad has mutually responsive ori-entation.’’ Hence, the final scores can range from �5to 5. Those data aggregationmethods tend to produceinterval-level measurement because the initial sub-scales are relative frequency variables with equalspacing properties.

The scores for the mother – child and father – childdyads correlated across 7, 15, and 25 months, rs from.30 to .39, ps, .005 for mothers; rs from .19, p, .10 to.40, p, .001 for fathers. Therefore, for each dyad, theywere aggregated across those three assessments.There were no significant differences in MRO withdaughters versus sons, for either parent.

Mediator Measures: Parents’ Power Assertion andChildren’s Self-Representation, Time 4 (38 Months)

Parents’ Power Assertion

Coded contexts. The parents’ power assertion wascoded in discipline contexts in the home and labora-tory (see also Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001, formore detail about the codes and aggregation). For eachparent, there was a home and lab toy cleanup context(‘‘Do,’’ cumulatively 15min) and 27min of ‘‘prohibitedtoys’’ context (‘‘Don’t’’), when the parent attempted tokeep the child from touching the off-limits, attractiveobjects on a low shelf in the laboratory (those contextsencompassed free time, snack, play, etc.). Thus, foreach child, there were 84 coded minutes.

Coding. The parent’s power assertion was codedfor each 30-s segment. For each segment, two kinds ofcodes were used: a global rating of maternal controlstyle (one code given to a coded segment) and thecoding of all physical interventions the parent used inthe segment (more than one type could be coded inone segment). Here, we focus only on codes express-ing forceful or power-assertive control. Among theglobal ratings, those included assertive control (parentcontrols in an assertive, firm manner) and forcefulcontrol (resorts to power, threats, negative, and angrycontrol). Examples of assertive control includeddirectcommands and prohibitions (‘‘No!,’’ ‘‘Do not playnow,’’ and ‘‘These are only to look at’’). Examples offorceful control included any command or prohibi-tion delivered in a raised or irritated voice, any threat(‘‘We won’t go to the pool until it’s all done’’), ora negative (‘‘What did I tell you?’’).

The physical power-assertive interventionsincluded assertive physical control and forceful physicalcontrol. Examples of assertive physical controlincluded any firm interventions that involved anysense of a clash of will (holding the child’s handdown, taking a toy from the child’s hand, and block-ing the child’s access to toys). Examples of forceful

34 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

physical control included any physical interventiondelivered with anger or irritation on the part of theparent and involving a degree of coercion (roughlyremoving a toy from the child’s hand, turning thechild around abruptly, and a light slap). Kappas wereas follows: for the global ratings, .79 to .94; for thephysical interventions, .80 to 1.00, with the exceptionof forceful physical control, coded by consensusbecause it was rare.

Data aggregation. First, for each ‘‘Do’’ and ‘‘Don’t’’context, we counted and tallied all instances of thepower-assertive codes, divided each tally by the num-ber of coded segments (respectively, in the ‘‘Do’’ and‘‘Don’t’’ context), averaged across home and lab, andstandardized. Then, we averaged, first across the twoglobal power scores and then across the two physicalpower scores, separately for the ‘‘Do’’ and ‘‘Don’t’’contexts. Next, we created one general power score forthe ‘‘Do’’ context and an analogous score for the‘‘Don’t’’ context, each averaged across the global andphysical scores. Finally, we averaged across thesegeneral power scores, creating one score of powerassertion for each parent. Mothers used more powerassertionwith their sons,M5 0.19,SD5 0.85, thanwithdaughters,M5�0.19,SD5 0.63, t(97)5�2.49, p, .05,but there was no significant difference for fathers.

Children’s Self-Representations

Coded contexts. We administered the six-step self –other distinction tasks designed by Pipp, Fischer, andJennings (1987). The steps gauged the child’s abilitiesto locate self spatially in response to his/her name(‘‘Where’s ___ (child’s name)?’’), locate a rouge markfrom his/her reflection in the mirror, verbally to labelhim/her self from the mirror image (‘‘Who’s that?’’),respond verbally to questions tapping knowledge offeatural possession (‘‘Whose shoes are those?’’),familial possession (‘‘Who do you belong to? Whosechild/baby are you?’’), and gender identification(‘‘Are you a boy or girl?’’).

Coding. Thechild’s responseswere scoredasno pass(0), ambiguous pass (1), or full pass (2) to each of the sixquestions. Reliability, kappas, ranged from .60 to 1.00.

Data aggregation. We used a total score for self-representation by adding all codes of 1 and 2. Girls’and boys’ scores did not significantly differ.

Outcome Measures, Children’s Internalization of Parents’Prohibition and Self-Regulation, Time 5 (52 Months)

Children’s Internalization of Parents’ Prohibition

Coding contexts. The procedural and coding detailsfor this paradigm are inKochanska et al. (2001). At the

end of the lab session with each parent, we observedthe child’s internalization of this parent’s prohibitionregarding the off-limit attractive objects. The parentrepeated the prohibition, and left to the adjoiningroom, leaving the child alone. To make the objectssalient, the parent asked the child to engage in a dullsorting task set up directly in front of the shelf. Thechild was alone (1 min); then, an unfamiliar femaleentered, played with the most attractive toys (1 min),and left; the child was again alone (6 min).

Coding. The child’s behavior was coded for each of96 five-s segments as looking at toys without touch-ing, engaged in other activity (e.g., snacking), sorting,touching toys gently, self-correcting (beginning totouch and terminating the attempt spontaneously),and deviating (playing with the toys). Reliability,kappas, ranged from .95 to .96. Latencies to look,touch, and deviate were also coded, and for them, allalphas were 1.00.

Data reduction. The relative scores for each of thecoded behaviors (tallies divided by the number ofsegments when the child was in the same room as theobjects, and not, e.g., trying to get in the parent’s lap)and the latency scores were submitted to principalcomponents analysis (PCA). The results were con-sistent with previous multiple samples and ages(Kochanska et al., 2001) and across both parents.

The first factor produced by the PCA reflected thechild’s internalization. For the mother’s prohibition,the following variables loaded: low deviation (�.90),long latencies to touch (.90) and to deviate (.93),sorting activity (.67), low gentle touch (�.48), andlooking without touching (.26). Eigenvalue was 3.40,accounting for 38% of variance. For the father’s pro-hibition, the following variables loaded: low devia-tion (�.86), long latencies to touch (.91) and to deviate(.94), sorting activity (.43), low gentle touch (�.58),and looking without touching (.35). Eigenvalue was3.23, accounting for 36% of variance. These respectivefactor scores were used further. Girls had higherscores than boys with both parents: with mothers,girlsM5 0.33, SD5 0.58, boysM5�0.32, SD5 1.21,t(96)5 3.40, p, .01; with fathers, girlsM5 0.20, SD50.81, boysM5�0.20, SD5 1.13, t(96)5 2.00, p, .05.

Children’s Self-Regulation

Paradigms. Children’s self-regulation was ob-served in a battery of effortful control tasks. Similarbatteries, developed in our laboratory, described indetail in Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, andVandegeest (1996), Kochanska, Murray, and Coy(1997), and Kochanska et al. (2000), are widely usedin the field. Thus, the description here will be brief.

Mechanisms of MRO 35

There were 14 tasks, all multitrial in nature to yieldrobust measures of performance. They aimed tocapture several interrelated aspects of the child’scapacity to suppress a dominant behavior and toperform instead a subdominant behavior: delaying,slowingdowngross and finemotor activity, suppress-ing/initiating activity to signal, lowering voice, andeffortful attention.

Five delaying tasks involved waiting for a pleasantevent (Tongue, holding an M&M candy on tonguewithout eating; Snack Delay, reaching for a candyunder a cup;DinkyToys, deliberately choosing aprizefrom a box filled with small toys; and two Gifts,waiting to reach for a gift in bag and not looking ata gift being wrapped and waiting to open it while E‘‘gets a bow’’). Three slowing-down tasks called forslowing motor activity (Telephone Poles, drawinga line slowly; Walk-a-Line-Slowly, walking a 6-ft line;and Turtle-and-Rabbit, guiding a toy turtle slowlyalong a curved path to the barn). Three tasks called forsuppressing or inhibiting a response to one type ofsignal and producing or initiating a response to another(Red–Green Signs and Bird and Dragon, both ‘‘go–nogo’’ tasks; and Tower, a game involving taking turns).Lowering voice was tapped by Whisper task. Twoeffortful attention (Stroop-like) tasks required ignor-ing a dominant perceptual feature of a stimulus forthe sake of a subdominant feature, Day –Night andSnow-Grass; these two tasks, adapted from CarlsonandMoses (2001), were new. Every task was presentedas a fun gameor as a challenge rather than a prohibitionor request, and the child was given positive feedbackregardless of performance. The tasks were interspersedwith other activities during the sessions.

Coding and reliability. The codes were stronglybehaviorally based and required little inference. Eachtrial was coded so that the higher score reflecteda better capacity for effortful control. Reliabilities,kappas, ranged from .81 to 1.00, and alphas (forlatency scores) ranged from .94 to 1.00.

Data aggregation. The scores were averaged acrosstrials, where applicable. The individual task scoreswere then standardized and aggregated into an inter-nally consistent (alpha 5 .72) battery composite. Girls’scoreswerehigher thanboys’: girlsM5 0.13,SD5 0.27;boys M 5 �0.16, SD 5 0.68, t(97) 5 3.40, p , .01.Descriptive data for all measures are shown in Table 1.

Results

The data analyses encompassed two broad steps. Inthe preliminary analyses, we examined correlationsamong all the measures in the study. Next, we

examined the questions of mediation by relying onobserved variable structural models with maximumlikelihood estimation. Recent conceptual and simula-tion work (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998; MacKinnon,et al., 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2007; Shrout &Bolger, 2002) highlights the shortcomings of relyingon the classic Baron and Kenny’s (1986) regression-based approach to testing mediation in certain com-mon situations. The consensus of this more recentwork is that the sequential regression-based approachcan produce highly biased inferences concerningmediation when (a) the effects of a single predictoron multiple correlated outcomes is of interest, (b)multiple intervening variables are postulated tomediate the effects of the predictor on the outcome(s),and (c) mediators are measured with error andintercorrelated with each other. All those three con-ditions apply to the current study (as well as to mostdevelopmental research).

Whereas each of those methodologists recom-mends a slightly different analytic choice for the

Table 1

Descriptive Data for All Measures

Measure M SD Range

Measures at Time 1

Mother – child MRO 1.50 1.25 �0.87 to 4.09

Father – child MRO 1.33 1.29 �1.06 to 3.97

Measures at Time 2

Mother – child MRO 1.44 1.53 �1.29 to 4.72

Father – child MRO 1.53 1.29 �0.74 to 4.46

Measures at Time 3

Mother – child MRO 2.07 1.29 �0.54 to 4.07

Father – child MRO 1.70 1.28 �0.64 to 4.31

Composites Times 1 – 3 (predictors)

Mother – child MRO 1.66 1.01 �0.61 to 4.14

Father – child MRO 1.51 0.93 �0.33 to 3.48

Measures at Time 4 (mediators)

Mother power assertiona 0.00 0.77 �2.16 to 2.52

Father power assertiona 0.00 0.81 �1.69 to 2.32

Child self-representation 8.92 2.37 2.00 to 11.00

Measures at Time 5 (outcomes)

Child internalization/mother

prohibitionb0.00 1.00 �3.20 to 0.79

Child internalization/father

prohibitionb0.00 1.00 �2.96 to 0.87

Self-regulation battery

compositec�0.01 0.53 �3.19 to 0.94

Note. Ns: Time 1 5 102; Time 2 5 101; Times 3 and 4 5 100; Time5 5 99. MRO 5 mutually responsive orientation.aComposite of standardized constituent variables.bFactor score produced by principal components analysis.cComposite of standardized scores on the individual tasks in thebattery.

36 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

researcher inclined to stay within the regressionframework, they all seem to endorse the view thatSEM software is optimally suited to estimate and testthe significance of such mediated indirect effectsusingwhat has becomeknownas the Sobel test (Sobel,1982). Hence, in this study, we opted to obtainestimates of mediated indirect effects using maxi-mum likelihood estimation with LISREL 8.72.

Because structural modeling techniques are typi-cally utilized in more confirmatory settings than ourhypotheses, we constructed saturated models toobtain estimates of total, indirect, and direct effectsamong the variables in each parent – child relation-ship separately. Because saturatedmodels necessarilyhave perfect fit, our goal was to simply obtainestimates of all pertinent direct and indirect effectsimplied by the hypothesized mediated relationships,and thus, we did not strive to engage in post hocmodel modification to arrive at more parsimoniousand well-fitting models.

This strategy of relying on saturated models pro-vides a critical advantage in evaluating mediationalhypotheses in a structuralmodeling context. As notedearlier, one important source of bias in the classicBaron and Kenny (1986) regression approach totesting complex mediation models is model misspe-cification (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The likelihood ofmodel misspecification and consequent bias in indi-rect effect estimates are greatly reduced with satu-rated models because model misspecification cannotarise from omitted effects typical in constrainedmodels. Further, with longitudinal data, as is the casehere, possible variations in the direction or flow ofcausality are greatly reduced.Hence, the likelihood ofmisspecification from incorrect causal ordering is alsogreatly reduced.

Preliminary Analyses

We examined correlations among the study’smeasures. Those are presented in Table 2.

There were multiple significant and meaningfulassociations. Themeasures obtained in bothmother –child and father – child relationships—parent – childMRO at Times 1 – 3, parental power assertion at Time4, and the child’s internalization of parental prohibi-tions at Time 5—all positively correlated across thoserelationships. Earlier MRO was negatively related tofuture power assertion, but only for mother – childdyads. The concurrent mediators, children’s self, andparental power assertion were unrelated.

Mother – child early MRO correlated with allfuture child measures: better self-representation,

more internalization with both parents, and betterself-regulation. Father – child early MRO correlatedwith children’s better self-representation and theirself-regulation.

The proposed mediator measures correlated withfuture children’s outcomes. Both parents’ powerassertion at Time 4 was related with children’s worseinternalization of both parents’ prohibitions at Time 5and with worse self-regulation at Time 5. Moreadvanced self-representation at Time 4 was associ-ated with better self-regulation at Time 5.

The Testing of Relations Among Early MRO, theMediators, and the Outcomes

Figures 1 and 2 depict the two saturated models,one for each parent – child relationship, mother –child relationship in Figure 1 and father – child rela-tionship in Figure 2, that were fit to obtain estimatesof total, direct, and indirect effects of parent – childMRO from 7 to 25 months on the outcomes at52 months (the child’s internalization of the parent’sprohibition and the child’s self-regulation), throughthe two putative mediators at 38 months (parentalpower assertion and the child’s self-representation).

As can be seen from Figure 1, we fit partialmediation models, in which parent – child MRO hadboth indirect and direct effects on each outcome. Themodels were parameterized so that all concurrentlyobtained measures were freely intercorrelated andthe effects of gender were residualized from both themediators and the outcomes. The estimates inthe figure are maximum likelihood estimates, andthe associated standard errors are presented in paren-theses. The dotted lines indicate nonsignificant ef-fects. For simplicity, we did not provide actualestimates for the effects of child gender on mediatorsand the outcomes. However, gender had a significanteffect on all variables in the model with the exceptionof the child’s self-representation.

The Mother –Child Relationship

Figure 1 depicts the maximum likelihood esti-mates for the direct effects and the associated stand-ard errors of early mother – child MRO from 7 to 25months on bothmediators at 38months (themother’spower assertion and the child’s self-representation)and on both outcomes at 52 months (the child’sinternalization of the mother’s prohibition and thechild’s self-regulation).

Figure 1 shows that the effects of early mother –child MRO on the child’s internalization of maternal

Mechanisms of MRO 37

prohibition was completely mediated, as the directeffect of mother – childMRO on this outcomewas notsignificant. The total effect of mother – child MRO oninternalization of maternal prohibition was signifi-cant, total effect5 .22, SE5 0.09, p, .05. The total in-direct effect of MRO on this outcome through the twomediators was also significant, total indirect effect 5.17, SE 5 0.05, p , .05. However, only the indirectpathway from early mother – child MRO to the moth-er’s power assertion to internalization of maternalprohibition was significant, indirect effect5 .11, SE50.05, p , .05. The indirect pathway from earlymother – child MRO to child’s self-representation to

internalization of maternal prohibition was not sig-nificant, indirect effect 5 .03, SE 5 0.02, ns, althoughself positively related to that outcome.

Figure 1 also shows that the effects of earlymother – child MRO on the child’s self-regulation waspartially mediated, as the direct effect of mother –child MRO on this outcome was significant. The totaleffect of mother – child MRO on self-regulation wassignificant, total effect 5 .24, SE 5 0.05, p , .05. Thetotal indirect effect of MRO on this outcome throughthe two mediators was also significant, total indirecteffect 5 .08, SE 5 0.03, p , .05. However, only theindirect pathway from early mother – child MRO to

Table 2

Correlations Among the Measures

Times 1 – 3 predictors Time 4 mediators Time 5 outcomes

MRO Power assertionC self-

representation

C internalizationC self-

regulationM–C F –C M–C F–C With M With F

MRO, T1 –T3

M–C — .52*** �.42*** �.42*** .25* .29** .24* .51***

F –C — �.26** �.15 .24* .17y .17y .28**

Power assertion, T4

M–C — .45*** .02 �.44*** �.40*** �.45***

F –C — �.19y �.49*** �.36*** �.52***

C self, T4 — .18y .15 .32***

C internalization, T5

With M — .68*** .54***

With F — .49***

Note. M 5 mother; F 5 father; C 5 child; MRO 5 mutually responsive orientation.yp , .10. *p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

Figure 1. The maximum likelihood estimates and (standard errors) for paths in the saturated model depicting the direct effects of interestamongmother – childMRO from 7 to 25 months, mother’s power assertion and child’s self-representation at 38 months, and internalizationof mother’s prohibitions and child’s self-regulation at 52 months. The figure also indicates how the effects of child gender were modeled asa covariate. The dotted paths represent statistically nonsignificant effects. M5mother; C5 child; MRO5mutually responsive orientation.

38 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

the mother’s power assertion to self-regulation wassignificant, indirect effect5 .05, SE5 0.02, p, .05. Theindirect pathway from early mother – child MRO tothe child’s self-representation to self-regulation wasnot significant, indirect effect 5 .02, SE 5 0.01, ns,although self positively related to that outcome.

The Father – Child Relationship

Figure 2 depicts the maximum likelihood esti-mates for the direct effects and the associated stan-dard errors of early father – child MRO from 7 to 25months on both mediators at 38 months (the father’spower assertion and the child’s self-representation)and on both outcomes at 52 months (the child’sinternalization of the father’s prohibition and thechild’s self-regulation).

Figure 2 shows that—consistent with the cor-relational analyses—therewas no evidence that eitherthe father’s power assertion or the child’s self-representation mediated the effects of early father –child MRO on the child’s internalization of paternalprohibition. Not surprisingly, the total effect of earlyfather – child MRO on this outcome was not signifi-cant, total effect 5 .17, SE 5 0.11, ns. As was the casefor the mother – child relationship, however, paternalpower assertion at 38 months adversely affected thechild’s future internalization of paternal prohibition.

Figure 2 also shows that the effects of early father –child MRO on the child’s self-regulation appears to bepartiallymediated, as the direct effect of father – childMRO on this outcome was significant. The total effectof father – child MRO on self-regulation was signifi-cant, total effect5 .15, SE5 0.05, p, .05.However, the

total indirect effect of MRO on this outcome throughthe two mediators was not significant, total indirecteffect 5 .05, SE 5 0.03, ns.

Paternal power assertion related negatively andchild self related positively to the child’s future self-regulation.

Discussion

Developmental research has produced an impressivebody of empirical data supporting links betweenqualities of early parent – child relationships andchildren’s outcomes. Causal mechanisms thataccount for those associations, however, are not wellunderstood. This is perhaps one legitimate reasonwhy claims about the important role of parenting inchildren’s development are sometimes disputed(Harris, 1998). Therefore, elucidating such causalmechanisms may advance our understanding of justhow parenting may influence children. Such knowl-edge may ultimately help us articulate well-foundedtheories of parenting and socialization and designstudies that test specific mechanisms, including con-trolled intervention studies.

In our earlier work, we had established and repeat-edly replicated empirical associations between theearly mutually responsive parent – child relationshipand the child’s future positive socialization outcomes(Kochanska, 1997, 2002). Then,we shifted to pursuingthe next objective—the testing of possible causalmechanisms that may account for those associations.In an earlier study with a different longitudinalsample of mothers and children (Kochanska et al.,

Figure 2. The maximum likelihood estimates and (standard errors) for paths in the saturated model depicting the direct effects of interestamong father – childMRO from 7 to 25 months, father’s power assertion and child’s self-representation at 38 months, and internalization offather’s prohibitions and child’s self-regulation at 52 months. The figure also indicates how the effects of child gender were modeled asa covariate. The dotted paths represent statistically nonsignificant effects. F 5 father; C 5 child; MRO 5 mutually responsive orientation.

Mechanisms of MRO 39

2005), we focused on three potential mechanisms ofthe links between mother – child MRO and children’sfuture conscience: the child’s enjoyment of interac-tions with the mother, his or her committed compli-ance to the mother, and maternal power assertion.That study provided initial evidence supporting theproposed causal model, particularly for the first twomediators; the findings for maternal power assertionwere ambiguous.

The current study—a new longitudinal sample ofmothers, fathers, and children—extends the previouswork and makes several new contributions to social-ization research. Most importantly, we examineMROin both mother – child and father – child dyads. Thefindings begin to provide much-needed informationabout similarities and differences between thedynamics of socialization processes in the two rela-tionships.

The MRO measure assesses explicitly the parent –child dyad instead of relying on the characteristics ofthe individuals; we examine MRO during the first2 years of life, when the foundations of the parent –child relationship are laid down, the mediators at age3, and the developmental outcomes at preschool age;we expand the range of studied outcomes to includethe child’s general self-regulatory capacity in additionto parent-specific internalization; we reexamine themediating role of parental power assertion; and wetest a new mediator, the child’s self.

Mothers and Children

Overall, the findings were clearer and more con-sistent for mother – child dyads than for father – childdyads. Childrenwho had experienced a highlymutu-ally responsive relationship with their mothers overthe course of the first 2 years of life strongly embracedmaternal prohibitions and showed overall strong self-regulatory capacities when they were 52 months.Perhaps more important, we supported the causalpaths that account for those effects. We demonstratedthat the MRO– internalization link was fully medi-ated and that the MRO– self-regulation link waspartially mediated by the fact that early MRO ledthe mothers to rely less on power assertion. Thisreduction in forceful discipline, in turn, had a signifi-cant beneficial effect on children’s internalization andself-regulation.

Those findings of reduced maternal power asser-tion serving as a mediator of the beneficial effects ofmother – child MRO on children’s future internalizedand self-regulated behavior emerged even in this low-risk sample. The parents in our families (as in mostparenting research to date), by and large, use rela-

tively little power during disciplinary encounters,and consequently, the mean levels and variability ofpower measures are comparatively low. This causalpathway may be much more powerful in high-risk,more stressed, ormore chaotic familieswhere forcefuldiscipline is common. Thus, this causal mechanismmay account for the often reported compromisedinternalization and self-regulation in children fromhigh-risk environments.

Consistent with earlier research on responsiveparenting and the child’s development of self-representation (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999;Cassidy, 1988; Hinde, 1999; Pipp et al., 1992), MROindeed predicted children’s more advanced self-representation. We failed, however, to support theprediction that self would mediate the links betweenMRO and developmental outcomes (although therewere positive links between self and both outcomes).Perhaps, our measures of self tapped mostly cogni-tive and knowledge-based aspects of featural self-representation, focused on the degree of self – othersdistinction. Those measures may not have beensensitive to other aspects of the self, often linked toearly relationships in the socioemotional framework.Those aspects may include more implicit qualities ofthe child’s internal working model of the self, such asself-worth, self-confidence, a sense of agency, efficacy,and finally, identification with the caregiver, all ofwhich may be particularly relevant to the develop-ment of internalization and self-regulation.

Fathers and Children

Some of the components of the postulated causalpaths were similar to those for mothers and children.As for mothers and children, early father – childMRO was associated with children’s better self-regulation at 52 months and with more advancedself-representation at 38 months (and recall that childself also positively related to self-regulation). And, asfor mothers and children, paternal power assertion at38 months was adversely related to both outcomes at52 months.

Someof the processes appeareddifferent, however.In contrast to mothers and children, early father –child MRO did not have a significant effect on thechild’s internalization of the father’s prohibition at52 months, and it did not predict fathers’ lowerreliance on power assertion in discipline contexts at38 months. Also, in contrast to mothers and children,in terms of the posited entire mediational chains, thefindings did not support either of the two proposedcausal pathways among MRO, the mediators, andself-regulation for father – child dyads. Consequently,

40 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

we understand less what mechanisms account forpositive effects of MRO on socialization in father –child dyad, compared with mother – child dyads.

At present, it is difficult to produce a satisfactoryexplanation for the difference in the findings formothers versus fathers. The difference in the media-tional chains between the two relationships was notdue to an absolute difference in the level of MRO inthose relationships, t(101) 5 1.54, ns. Perhaps ourcoding system was not sensitive enough to subtledifferences in howMRO is expressed between youngchildren and mothers versus fathers. Some research-ers have suggested that, at least in infancy, mothers’manner of responsiveness and affective expressionmay be better suited to the nature of the infantand more effective in terms of inducting the childinto a reciprocal set (Maccoby, 1990). Some studieshave found that mothers are more responsive thanfathers in normative and special populations (Olrick,Pianta, &Marvin, 2002; Volling, McElwain, Notaro, &Herrera, 2002) and that the two parents act differentlywith their children, with mothers engaging in morecaregiving and comforting, and fathers in more high-intensity play (Lamb, 1997; Parke, 2002). Finally, it ispossible that the overall stronger effects of MRO inmother – child dyad are due to the fact that, by andlarge,mothers continue to spendmore timewith theiryoung children than fathers (Parke & Buriel, 2006).Consequently, in most families, the mother – childrelationship is a more potent socialization context, atleast for young children.

Further, the dynamics of causality in mothers’ andfathers’ relationships with same- and opposite-gender children may also be different, although wewereunable to test suchdifferences due to insufficientNs. Cowan, Bradburn, and Cowan (2005), adoptingan attachment perspective, revealed a complexpattern of similarities and differences across mother –daughter,mother – son, father – daughter, and father –son dyads in causal links among parental workingmodels of attachment, marital functioning, parentingstyles, and children’s internalizing and externalizingoutcomes. As studies that include fathers becomemore common, more research on this issue is needed.

We have examined two kinds of child outcomesin this study: a relationship-specific outcome—thechild’s internalization of the given parent’s prohib-ition—and a broad outcome that was not relationshipspecific—the child’s capacity for self-regulation. Thechild’s capacity for self-regulation, as assessed in ourtasks, is often referred to as effortful control, as seen asa quality of temperament, an outgrowth of individualdifferences in the child’s biology (Rothbart & Bates,2006). On the other hand, several bodies of literature

illustrate links between the qualities of parenting andchildren’s ability to self-regulate (Kochanska &Knaack, 2003; Maccoby, 2007; Power & Chapieski,1986). The present study suggests complex contribu-tions to self-regulation by multiple developmentalfactors: mother – child and father – child relationship,parental power assertion directed toward the child,and the child’s development of self-representation.Further, for mothers and children, the study elucidatesspecific mechanisms of influence.

Our sample represented a relatively broad demo-graphic range (e.g., approximately one third of parentshad no more than high school education and manycame from rural areas). However, despite the fact that20% of the families included at least one minorityparent, the parents were predominantly White. Thus,although the findings can be generalized to the Mid-west, fromwhere the samplewas drawn, theymay notapply to other, more ethnically diverse areas.

Developmental psychology has been advancingfrom merely establishing empirical associations toelucidating mechanisms that account for those associ-ations. The field of socialization, rifewith controversiesabout effects of parenting on children’s internalizedand self-regulated conduct, is particularlywell servedby progress in answering those questions.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.(1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Aksan, N., Kochanska, G., & Ortmann, M. R. (2006).Mutually responsive orientation between parents andtheir young children: Toward methodological advancesin the science of relationships. Developmental Psychology,42, 833 – 848.

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

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.New York: Basic Books. (Original work published in 1969)

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation.New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. NewYork: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.Bretherton, J., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal work-ing models in attachment relationships: A constructrevisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbookof attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.89 – 111). New York: Guilford Press.

Bryant, B. K., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates anddimensions of prosocial behavior: A study of female sib-lings with their mothers. Child Development, 51, 529 – 544.

Mechanisms of MRO 41

Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization pro-cesses. InW. Damon (Series Ed.) &N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment (pp. 389– 462). New York: Wiley.

Bugental, D. B., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Socialization pro-cesses. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N.Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social,emotional, and personality development (pp. 366 – 428).New York: Wiley.

Calkins, S. D., Smith, C. L., Gill, K. L., & Johnson, M. C.(1998). Maternal interactive style across contexts: Rela-tions to emotional, behavioral and physiological regula-tion during toddlerhood. Social Development, 7, 350 – 369.

Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differencesin inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. ChildDevelopment, 72, 1032 – 1053.

Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment and the self insix-year-olds. Child Development, 59, 121 – 134.

Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types ofrelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47, 549 – 557.

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (Eds.). (1999). Relationships asdevelopmental contexts. Minnesota symposia on child psy-chology, 30. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington,E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary researchon parenting: The case for nature and nurture. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 218 – 232.

Cowan, P. A., Bradburn, I., & Cowan, C. P. (2005). Parents’working models of attachment: The intergenerationalcontext of parenting and children’s adaptation to school.In P. A. Cowan, C. P. Cowan, J. C. Ablow, V. K. Johnson, &J. R. Measelle (Eds.), The family context of parenting inchildren’s adaptation to elementary school (pp. 209– 235).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Criss, M. M., Shaw, D. S., & Ingoldsby, E. M. (2003).Mother-son positive synchrony in middle childhood: Rela-tion to antisocial behavior. Social Development, 12, 379 – 400.

Deater-Deckard, K., & O’Connor, T. G. (2000). Parent-childmutuality in early childhood: Two behavioral geneticstudies. Developmental Psychology, 36, 561 – 570.

De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivityand attachment: A meta-analysis of parental antecedentsof infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571 – 591.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting:Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bul-letin, 110, 3 – 25.

Emde, R. N., Biringen, Z., Clyman, R. B., & Oppenheim, D.(1991). The moral self of infancy: Affective core andprocedural knowledge.Developmental Review, 11, 251 – 270.

Gardner, F., Ward, S., Burton, J., & Wilson, C. (2003). Therole of mother-child joint play in the early developmentof children’s conduct problems: A longitudinal study.Social Development, 12, 361 – 378.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). The impact ofparental discipline methods on the child’s internaliza-tion of values: A reconceptualization of the currentpoints of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4 – 19.

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why childrenturn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.

Harrist, A. W., & Waugh, R. M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony:Its structure and function in children’s development.Developmental Review, 22, 555 – 592.

Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). Thesocialization of prosocial development. In J. Grusec & P.Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 638 – 664).New York: Guilford Press.

Hinde, R. A. (1999). Commentary: Aspects of relationshipsin child development. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen,(Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts. Minnesotasymposia on child psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 323 – 329).Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motiva-tion: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Thedevelopment of prosocial behavior (pp. 281– 313). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes inmoral internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development(pp. 236 – 274). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, J. (1980). The second year: The emergence of self-awareness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kagan, J. (1984). The nature of the child. New York: Basic Books.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Dataanalysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,& G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4thed., Vol. 1, pp. 233 – 265). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation be-tween mothers and their young children: Implications forearly socialization. Child Development, 68, 94 – 112.

Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientationbetween mothers and their young children: A contextfor the early development of conscience. Current Direc-tions in Psychological Science, 11, 191 – 195.

Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). Thedevelopment of self-regulation in the first four years oflife. Child Development, 72, 1091 – 1111.

Kochanska, G., Forman, D. R., Aksan, N., & Dunbar, S. B.(2005). Pathways to conscience: Early mother-childmutually responsive orientation and children’s moralemotion, conduct, and cognition. Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry, 46, 19 – 34.

Kochanska, G., Forman, G., & Coy, K. C. (1999). Implica-tions of the mother-child relationship in infancy forsocialization in the second year of life. Infant Behaviorand Development, 22, 249 – 265.

Kochanska, G., Gross, J. N., Lin, M. -H., & Nichols, K. E.(2002). Guilt in young children: Development, determi-nants, and relations with a broader system of standards.Child Development, 73, 461 – 482.

Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control asa personality characteristic of young children: Antece-dents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personal-ity, 71, 1087 – 1112.

Kochanska, G., & Murray, K. T. (2000). Mother-child mutu-ally responsive orientation and conscience development:

42 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams

From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 71,417 – 431.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997).Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience inchildhood: From toddler to early school age. ChildDevelopment, 68, 263 – 277.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. (2000). Effortfulcontrol in early childhood: Continuity and change,antecedents, and implications for social development.Developmental Psychology, 36, 220 – 232.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T., Koenig, A. L., &Vandegeest, K. (1996). Inhibitory control in young chil-dren and its role in emerging internalization. ChildDevelopment, 67, 490 – 507.

Kochanska, G., Padavich, D. L., & Koenig, A. L. (1996).Children’s narratives about hypothetical moral dilem-mas and objective measures of their conscience: Mutualrelations and socialization antecedents. Child Develop-ment, 67, 1420 – 1436.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A de-velopmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,199 – 214.

Kopp, C. B., & Wyer, N. (1994). Self-regulation in normaland atypical development. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth(Eds.), Disorders and dysfunctions of the self (pp. 31 – 56).Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Laible, D. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2000). Mother-childdiscourse, attachment security, shared positive affect,and early conscience development. Child Development,71, 1424 – 1440.

Lamb, M. E. (1997). The development of father-infantrelationships. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the fatherin child development (3rd ed., pp. 104 – 120). New York:Wiley.

Lay, K. L., Waters, E., & Park, K. A. (1989). Maternalresponsiveness and child compliance: The role of moodas mediator. Child Development, 60, 1405 – 1411.

Lepper, M. R. (1981). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation inchildren: Detrimental effects of superfluous social con-trols. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on childpsychology (Vol. 14, pp. 155 – 214). Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press.

Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., Stanger, C., & Weiss, M. (1989).Self-development and self-conscious emotions. ChildDevelopment, 60, 146 – 156.

Lytton, H. (1980). Parent-child interaction: The socializationprocesses observed in twin and singleton families. New York:Plenum.

Maccoby, E. E. (1983). Let’s not overattribute to theattribution process: Comments on social cognition andbehavior. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 356 –370). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A devel-opmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513 – 520.

Maccoby, E. E. (1999). The uniqueness of the parent-childrelationship. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.),Relationships as developmental contexts. Minnesota symposia

on child psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 157 – 175). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socializationresearch and theory. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.),Handbook of socialization (pp. 13 – 41). New York: GuilfordPress.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in thecontext of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H.Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, person-ality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1 – 102) NewYork: Wiley.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West,S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods totest mediation and other intervening variable effects.Psychological Methods, 7, 83 – 104.

Martin, J. A. (1981). A longitudinal study of the conse-quences of early mother-infant interaction: A microan-alytic approach. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 46(3, Serial No. 190).

Olrick, J. T., Pianta, R. C., & Marvin, R. S. (2002). Mothers’and fathers’ responses to signals of children withcerebral palsy during feeding. Journal of Developmentaland Physical Disabilities, 14, 1 – 17.

Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H.Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being andbecoming a parent (pp. 27 – 73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family:Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, and person-ality development (pp. 429 – 504). New York: Wiley.

Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsive-ness and subsequent child compliance. Child Develop-ment, 56, 1326 – 1334.

Pipp, S., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1992). Therelation between attachment and knowledge of self andmother in one- to three-year-old infants. Child Develop-ment, 63, 738 – 750.

Pipp, S., Fischer, K. W., & Jennings, S. (1987). The acqui-sition of self and mother knowledge in infancy. Devel-opmental Psychology, 23, 86 – 96.

Posner, M. J., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developingmechanisms of self-regulation. Development and Psycho-pathology, 12, 427 – 441.

Power, T. G., & Chapieski, M. L. (1986). Childrearing andimpulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic investigation.Developmental Psychology, 22, 271 – 275.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS proce-dures for estimating indirect effect in simple mediationmodels. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Com-puters, 36, 717 – 731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Asymptotic andresampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirecteffects in multiple mediator models. Manuscript submittedfor publication.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Richters, J., & Wilson, W. E. (1988).Child development in a network of relationships. In R.

Mechanisms of MRO 43

A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationshipswithin families: Mutual influences (pp. 48 – 67). Oxford,UK: Clarendon.

Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). Therelationship context of human behavior and develop-ment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844 – 872.

Rocissano, L., Slade, A., & Lynch, V. (1987). Dyadicsynchrony and toddler compliance. Developmental Psy-chology, 23, 698 – 704.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. InW. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional,and personality development (pp. 99 – 166). New York:Wiley.

Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983).Behavioral development and construct validity: The prin-ciple of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18 – 38.

Schneider-Rosen, K., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). The relation-ship between affect and cognition in maltreated infants:Quality of attachment and the development of self-recognition. Child Development, 55, 648 – 658.

Shaw, D. S. (2003). Innovative approaches and methods tothe study of children’s conduct problems. Social Devel-opment, 12, 309 – 313.

Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994). Develop-mental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3.Developmental Psychology, 30, 355 – 364.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in ex-perimental and nonexperimental studies: New proce-dures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7,422 – 445.

Silverman, I. W., & Ragusa, D. M. (1992). A short-termlongitudinal study of the early development of self-regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20,415 – 435.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals forindirect effects in structural equation models. In S.Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 299 – 312).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stipek, D. J., Gralinski, H., & Kopp, C. B. (1990). Self-concept development in the toddler years. DevelopmentalPsychology, 26, 972 – 977.

Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person:Social understanding, relationships, conscience, self. InW. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional,and personality development (pp. 24 – 98). New York:Wiley.

Volling, B., McElwain, N., Notaro, P., & Herrera, C. (2002).Parents’ emotional availability and infant emotionalcompetence: Predictors of parent-infant attachmentand emerging self-regulation. Journal of Family Psychol-ogy, 16, 447 – 465.

Walker, L. J., & Taylor, J. H. (1991). Family interactions andthe development of moral reasoning. Child Development,62, 264 – 283.

Westerman, M. A. (1990). Coordination of maternal direc-tives with preschoolers’ behavior in compliance-problemand healthy dyads.Developmental Psychology, 26, 621 – 630.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., &Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others.Developmental Psychology, 28, 126 – 136.

44 Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams