European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004)13:8–18 DOI 10.1007/s00787-004-0349-3 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

ECA

P 34

9

Cecilie JavoJohn A. RønningSonja HeyerdahlFloyd Webster Rudmin

Parenting correlates of child behaviorproblems in a multiethnic communitysample of preschool children in northernNorway

Accepted: 26 May 2003

C. Javo, M. D. · J. A. Rønning, Ph. D.Dept. of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryUniversity of TromsøTromsø, Norway

C. Javo, M. D. (�)Child Guidance Clinic (BUP) – KarasjokP. O. Box 49730 Karasjok, NorwayE-Mail: javo@ arcticnet.no

S. Heyerdahl, M. D.Regional Centre for Child and AdolescentPsychiatryRegion East and SouthP. O. Box 23Tåsen 0801 Oslo, Norway

F. W. Rudmin, Ph. D.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of Tromsø9016 Tromsø, Norway

■ Abstract A multiethnic commu-nity sample of 191 families withfour-year-old children in northernNorway was used to explorewhether parenting factors were as-sociated with child behavior prob-lems, and whether these associa-tions differed for boys and girls orfor the two main ethnic groups inthis region: the indigenous Samiand the majority Norwegians. TheChild Behavior Checklist (CBCL)and a semi-structured interview onchild-rearing were used as instru-ments. As would be expected froma developmental perspective, ele-vated scores of child behaviorproblems were associated withlower levels of parental cuddlingand with higher levels of physicalpunishment. Family demographicssuch as low maternal age and sin-gle parenthood were also associ-ated with more behavioral prob-

lems. Girls seemed to be morestrongly influenced by child-rear-ing factors than boys. Subgroupanalyses suggested that for harshtreatment, patterns of correlationsdiffered between Sami and Norwe-gian groups, especially for boys. Apositive correlation between physi-cal punishment and externalizingproblems emerged for Norwegianboys, but not for Sami boys. Teas-ing/ridiculing was positively corre-lated with internalizing problemsfor Norwegian boys, but inverselycorrelated for Sami boys. Thesefindings emphasize the importanceof taking the child’s cultural con-text and gender into account whenassessing parenting influences onbehavioral problems in children.

■ Key words CBCL – cross-cultural – parenting –preschool – Sami

Introduction

The literature has consistently documented the influ-ence of environmental factors, including parenting, onchildren’s behavior and psychosocial functioning [12,30, 46, 51]. Much of the research in this area has beenbased on variations in two basic dimensions of parent-ing behavior, described by Schaefer [44] and Becker [6]:parental restrictiveness – permissiveness and parentalwarmth – rejection.Later,Baumrind [3] developed threemodels of parental control. An authoritarian parentingstyle, in which parents were highly demanding (high

control) and low in responsiveness (low warmth) wasfound to associate with poorer child behavior outcomesthan did an authoritative style (high control, highwarmth) or a permissive style (low control, highwarmth) [5, 11, 38]. Other studies have demonstratedthat parents who were highly critical, disapproving andgenerally rejecting of their children tended to have chil-dren who behaved in hostile and aggressive ways [15,46]. On the other hand, positive practices such aswarmth and affective expressiveness were inversely as-sociated with both internalizing and externalizing prob-lems [34, 41, 51].

A great deal of attention has also been paid to the

C. Javo et al. 9Parenting correlates of child behavior problems in a multiethnic community sample

consequences for children of different control tech-niques employed in disciplinary situations. It has beendemonstrated that punitive types of discipline andpower-assertive techniques were linked with child be-havioral deviance and disruptive behavior problems [6,51, 52]. Punitive discipline (nagging, yelling, complain-ing) seemed to be associated with internalizing behav-ior, while more extensive patterns of punitive parentingthat also included physical punishment were morespecifically associated with externalizing child behav-iors [51].

However, the effects of any child-rearing variable oc-cur only in interaction with a large number of othervariables. Furthermore, associations between any par-ticular variable and child behavior problems may notexpress a causal effect. It is likely that causality is only tobe found in the interactions of different determinantsthat affect child behavior, and not in a single determi-nant [18, 53].

Studies have shown that parents’ child-rearing prac-tices are interrelated with family ecology factors. Thesefactors may either be mediated through parenting or af-fect child problems directly via their individual effectsor in interaction. Among such factors are single parent-hood [21, 33, 48], young maternal age [16, 27], lowparental educational level [7, 20], family discord or mar-ital conflict [13, 53] and parent’s psychopathology andlevel of social adjustment [17, 42, 46].

Child-rearing variables also interrelate with certaincharacteristics of the child such as gender, IQ, tempera-ment, and early development [18, 49]. Several studieshave demonstrated that difficult child behavior mayelicit poor parenting in mothers [2], and some even con-clude that child effects predominate in the etiology ofsome types of conduct disorder [29]. It seems unlikelythat any single risk factor will be sufficient to predictchildren’s adjustment problems [43]. An increase in thenumber of risk factors experienced by a child wouldraise the likelihood of it developing adjustment prob-lems [18].

The 1990s saw a sharp focus on genetic factors as de-terminants of child psychopathology [40]. There are im-portant gene-environment interactions, and genetic in-fluences have been demonstrated in several areas [36,40]. Genetic factors also play a significant role in indi-vidual differences in susceptibility to environmentalstressors [45]. However, although behavioral outcomesare affected by genetic predisposition, environmentalfactors are believed to explain about half the influenceon such outcomes.

When interpreting child-rearing determinantsacross different ethnic groups, we need to bear in mindthat parental attitudes and practices that beneficially af-fect child development may well differ from one socio-cultural context to another. Likewise, children’s cultur-ally determined expectations of how their parents

should behave must be taken into account. Thus, in cul-tural contexts in which strict parental discipline isprevalent and therefore perceived as normal by chil-dren, it is perceived not as rejection but as concern. Incultures in which permissive parental behavior is val-ued, strict parental control is perceived as rejection [10,26]. Parental influences have been shown to operate dif-ferently among African Americans, whites, and AsianAmericans [4, 12, 31, 50], suggesting that the very sametype of parenting has different effects on children of dif-ferent ethnic backgrounds. However, further compara-tive studies are needed to obtain more insight into therelationship between child-rearing, cultural values andchild behavior disorders within different cultural con-texts.

This project is a cohort study of parenting and childbehavior problems in a multiethnic general populationin the Sami area in Northern Norway. We have alreadypublished comparative data on child behavior problemsin the various ethnic groups that inhabit this area [23].We have also compared child-rearing practices betweenthe two main ethnic groups: the indigenous Sami andthe majority Norwegians [25]. Differences in child-rear-ing practices were found between these groups, and wewanted to investigate further their specific influences onchild outcome.

The principal aims of this study were to:� Identify associations between child rearing variables

and child behavior problems, also considering the ef-fects of family demographics, child gender and eth-nicity.

� Determine whether these correlates were differentfor the two main ethnic groups: Sami and Norwe-gians, and for boys and girls.

Methods

■ Participants and procedure

The participants in the project were the parents of 191four-year-olds living within the Sami core area in Finn-mark, the northernmost county of Norway. This is asparsely populated, rural area. The population is multi-ethnic, comprising indigenous Sami (formerly called“Lapps”), majority Norwegians, people of mixed her-itage, and historically immigrant Finns.

The Samis are an indigenous Arctic people who in-habit the northern part of Scandinavia and Russia. Dueto a long-standing history of discrimination and forcedassimilation policies on the part of the national author-ities, a large proportion of the Sami have lost their eth-nic identity and native language [14]. Within the Samicore area, the process of assimilation has not gone as faras in other areas, and the institutional and practical sup-ports for Sami culture are stronger.

10 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) Vol. 13, No. 1© Steinkopff Verlag 2004

The target sample comprised all four-year-old chil-dren within this area who were listed in the populationregister of 1991–1994, and whose parents were called infor the obligatory health assessment of their child at theage of four.

Parents were invited to participate in the projectwhen they visited the well-baby clinics. Of the 296 fami-lies with children summoned for the health assessmentwithin the given period of time, 276 (93 %) attended.Both intact families and single mothers were invited toparticipate. Fathers who did not live with the child werenot (n = 30). Families with twins, adopted children orchildren with severe handicaps were excluded (n = 7).Thus, the study did not include children with specialneeds that might affect their parents’ child-rearing prac-tices.

Agreements were made to call the parents by tele-phone after a week to ask whether or not they wished toparticipate: 24 % of the families refused to participate,and 6 % did not answer our telephone calls or were notcontacted again due to the exclusion criteria. This re-sulted in an overall participation rate of 70 % (193 fam-ilies). Data from two children were too incomplete, leav-ing a total of 191 families in the sample.

A questionnaire was filled out by each parent, fol-lowed by a semi-structured interview, which lasted ap-proximately two hours. The interviews were conductedin the subjects’ homes.Written consent was obtained be-forehand. Mothers and fathers were interviewed sepa-rately. The interviews were held in the parents’ own lan-guage, and carried out by interviewers of differentethnic backgrounds: either a Sami social worker trainedin child psychiatry, or the first author of this paper, aNorwegian child psychiatrist.

■ Ethnicity. Parents’ ethnicity was assessed by askingeach parent: “How would you classify your ethnicity?”Children whose parents both claimed a Sami ethnicitywere identified as Sami and those whose parents bothclaimed a Norwegian ethnicity were identified as Nor-wegian. Children of multiethnic heritage or other her-itages were identified as mixed/other. By these criteria,67 children (31 girls and 36 boys) were classified asSami, 63 (31 girls and 32 boys) as Norwegian, and 61 (36girls and 25 boys) as mixed/other (Table 1).

■ Socioeconomic status. For comparison between thesamples, parental educational level was used as an indi-cator of socioeconomic status (SES). With two parents,the higher educational level was used. Educational levelwas scored on a four-point scale taken from the Nordicstandard classification system of SES, based on the 1970census in Norway. The SES distribution is shown inTable 1.

There were no significant differences in educationallevel or other demographic variables between the sam-

ples. Our sample might be considered to be a “best case”sample, as it included no family poverty, no unattendedhealth problems, no severe parental psychopathologies,and no referrals of children to the child psychiatric ser-vices.

■ Instruments

To assess child behavior problems we used the Child Be-havior Checklist (CBCL), 4–18 years [1]. The CBCL is aparent questionnaire, which is used to assess a widerange of children’s competences and problem behaviorsin a standardized fashion. It consists of 20 competenceand 120 problem items.The problem items are scored ona three-point scale, with 0 = not true of the subject,1 = somewhat or sometimes true,and 2 = very true or of-ten true.The CBCL yields eight syndrome scales and twobroadband scales (Internalizing and Externalizing) anda Total Problems scale. Norwegian and Sami versions ofthe CBCL were used, depending on the parents’ prefer-ence.

Family and parenting variables were obtained by asemi-structured interview based on a schedule origi-nally devised by Newson and Newson [32], and latermodified by Hackett and Hackett [19]. The latter versionwas used. Linguistic equivalence was established bytranslation of the interview schedule from English intoNorwegian and back again, and from Norwegian intoSami and back again, by bilingual English-Norwegianpsychologists and by professional, bilingual Sami-Nor-wegian translators. The schedule was further adapted toa Sami context by adding new culturally relevant ques-tions.

Expert informant validation was established by ask-ing 16 Sami and Norwegian professionals about theiropinions as to the relevance of each item. Of the ques-tions, 95 % were found to be relevant. Informant valida-tion was established by asking the first 55 informants inour project to make their own evaluations.Of these,86 %found all the questions relevant.

The final interview schedule consisted of 225 ques-tions that covered child-rearing practices and parentalattitudes to a wide range of type of child behavior [25].Most questions in the guide were fixed alternative items,allowing responses to be scored on the spot. However,the questions were asked in an open-ended manner inorder to permit parents to give more detailed explana-tions and descriptions. Inter-rater reliability testing wasobtained by 50 live interviews being simultaneouslyscored on the spot by the two interviewers during fivedifferent phases of the project period, ten in each phase.Applying the formula: Number of items agreed on x100/Total number of items, the mean percentage agree-ment in scores was 97.3 %. Factual questions were omit-ted. As an additional measurement, Kappa was applied.

C. Javo et al. 11Parenting correlates of child behavior problems in a multiethnic community sample

Mean Kappa for all relevant items was found to be 0.95,ranging from 0.66 to 1.00.

Fathers’ CBCL scores and responses on child-rearingfactors have been reported in previous papers,and moth-ers’ and fathers’ scores have been compared [23, 25]. Inthis paper,we decided to use mothers’reports only,due tothe greater number of mothers who participated.

Items pertaining to different aspects of parentingwere selected from the full set of items in the interviewguide. The items were chosen based on the literature onparenting factors associated with the development ofchild behavior problems. Family variables included:mother’s age, level of parental education (SES),and mar-ital status (single parenthood vs. couples). The selectedchild-rearing items were grouped as: [1] parental stylesof restrictiveness-permissiveness,[2] parental cuddling,[3] physical punishment, and [4] teasing/ridiculing.

These were scored on a three-point scale. Indices wereformed by computing the mean score of the contribut-ing items.

A restrictiveness-permissiveness index had beenconstructed previously to examine cross-cultural differ-ences in child-rearing [25] and included parental atti-tudes to eating and table rules, sleeping and bedtimerules, and freedom in play (16 items, Cronbach’sα = 0.74). For the present study, other constructs ofchild-rearing known to influence child behavior, such asparental warmth and punitive or harsh treatment (phys-ical punishment and teasing/ridiculing), were added.The cuddling index combined questions on frequency ofcuddling and parental attitude towards cuddling (twoitems, Cronbach’s α = 0.55). The physical punishmentindex combined questions on frequency of slapping, fre-quency of threats of slapping, and number of adults who

Sami Norwegian Mixed/other (n = 67) (n = 63) ethnicities

(n = 61)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD *p

Maternal age: 32.9 5.8 31.1 5.4 32.5 5.6 NSBirth order of index child: 1.9 0.9 1.7 0.8 1.9 1.0 NSNumber of siblings: 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.9 NSSize of household:Number of adults 1.9 0.7 2.0 0.4 2.0 0.5 NSNumber of children 2.3 1.0 2.2 0.8 2.3 0.9 NS

n % n % n % *p

Marital status:Married (biological) 52 77.6 56 88.9 53 86.9 NSSingle parent 15 22.4 7 11.1 8 13.1 NS

Socio-economic statusby length of education: NS

9 years 26 38.8 21 33.3 16 33.012 years 22 32.8 26 41.3 18 34.616 years 14 20.9 19 15.9 16 20.918 years 5 7.5 6 9.5 11 11.5

Employment status,fathers: NS

Employed 63 95.5 58 93.5 59 96.7Unemployed 3 4.5 4 6.3 2 3.3

Employment status,mothers: NS

Employed 56 83.6 49 77.8 51 83.6Unemployed 11 16.4 14 22.2 10 16.4

Mean S. D. Mean S. D. Mean S. D. *p

Cuddlinga 1.8 0.3 2.0 0.2 1.9 0.3 0.03*Physical punishmenta 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.04*Teasing/ridiculinga 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.004**Permissivenessa 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.000***

* Comparisons between samples by chi-square test and one-way ANOVAa Scale 0–2: low score for the practice = 0; high score for the practice = 2

Table 1 Distribution of Selected DemographicVariables and Child-Rearing Variables in Families(mothers’ reports)

12 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) Vol. 13, No. 1© Steinkopff Verlag 2004

slapped the child (three items, Cronbach’s α = 0.66). Theteasing/ridiculing index combined items related to fre-quency of teasing, number of adults teasing the child,parental attitude towards teasing, and attitude towardshardening the child (four items, Cronbach’s α = 0.76).

■ Statistical analyses

First, bivariate Pearson correlations were examined. Asmany of the variables had a skewed distribution, non-parametric statistical tests were also performed. The re-sults were very similar to the results of the parametrictests, which are reported. Calculating the 99 % confi-dence intervals based on the Fisher r-to-z transforma-tion, we tested differences between the correlation coef-ficients of boys and girls and of the Sami and Norwegiansubgroups. Significance was estimated by examiningwhether the value of the correlation coefficient of thelarger of the two samples was within the 99 % confidenceinterval of the smaller sample.All p values below the 0.05significance level are presented in the tables. However,due to the many correlation tests performed, only valuesbelow the 0.01 level are discussed in the text.Bonferroni-type procedures to correct for Type I error were not em-ployed due to small sample sizes.Such procedures wouldhave increased the risk of type II errors.

Next, multiple regression analyses were conducted.We used a block-wise procedure in which blocks of vari-ables were successively examined [28]. The purpose wasto test whether child-rearing variables together as agroup explained a significant proportion of the variancein problems scores, controlling for family demographicvariables, child gender and ethnicity. The followinggroups were formed: block 1: child gender and ethnicity,block 2: family demographic variables, and block 3:child-rearing variables.

First, we examined whether block 1 alone con-tributed to explain the CBCL scores. We then examinedblock 2, while controlling for block 1. Then, block 3 wasexamined in the same way, while controlling for block 1and block 2.

Due to low to moderate correlations between the in-dependent variables, multicollinearity was not a prob-lem.

Results

To examine the variance accounted for by the family andparenting factors in relation to internalizing and exter-nalizing child behavior problems, both bivariate corre-lations and multiple regression analyses were per-formed.

■ Descriptive, first-order correlations

First-order correlations are shown separately for the to-tal cohort, including comparisons of boys and girls(Table 2), and subsequently for the two main ethnic sub-groups (Table 3).

Total cohort

For the total cohort, demographic variables such asyoung maternal age and single parenthood correlatedwith child behavior problems. Among the child-rearingconstructs, parental cuddling was inversely correlatedwith internalizing problems, and also with externalizingproblems in girls. Physical punishment was correlatedwith externalizing problems, and also with internalizingproblems in girls. Teasing/ridiculing correlated with ex-ternalizing problems in girls. In general, child-rearing

Internalizing Problems Scale Externalizing Problems Scale

All Boys Girls All Boys Girls(N = 190) (N = 92) (N = 98) (N = 191) (N = 93) (N = 98)

Mean CBCL scores 3.3 3.4 3.3 8.4 9.6 7.3SD (3.3) (3.0) (3.7) (6.6) (6.6) (6.4)

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLESMother’s age – 0.24*** – 0.23* – 0.24* – 0.22** – 0.31** – 0.13Single parenthood + 0.27*** + 0.28** + 0.27** + 0.17* + 0.14 + 0.20*Parental education – 0.12 – 0.20 – 0.06 – 0.13 – 0.18 – 0.06

CHILD-REARING VARIABLESCuddling – 0.22** – 0.12 – 0.30** – 0.17* – 0.02 # – 0.35***Physical punishment + 0.11 – 0.07 # + 0.26** + 0.25*** + 0.07 # + 0.41***Teasing/ridiculing + 0.16* + 0.03 + 0.26* + 0.10 – 0.07 # + 0.24**Permissiveness + 0.01 – 0.03 + 0.04 + 0.10 + 0.05 + 0.07

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Hatch-mark # indicates significant difference between boys’ and girls’ cor-relations (99 % confidence interval, see Statistics). Variations in N are due to missing data

Table 2 Mean CBCL scores and bivariate correla-tions; total sample: correlations between demo-graphic and child-rearing variables, and CBCL Inter-nalizing and Externalizing Problems Scores

C. Javo et al. 13Parenting correlates of child behavior problems in a multiethnic community sample

variables were associated with elevated problem scoresfor girls,but not for boys.No correlations were found be-tween parental permissiveness and problem scores foreither gender.

In order to assess the degree of relatedness amongthe measures, we explored correlations among the fam-ily demographic variables, and between the family de-mographic variables and the child-rearing constructs.Mother’s age correlated with single parenthood(r = –0.20; p = 0.005) and with parental educational level(r = + 0.39; p = 0.000), and also tended to correlate withcuddling (r = + 0.16; p = 0.028). Parental educationallevel correlated with physical punishment (r = –0.21;p = 0.004), and also tended to correlate with parentalpermissiveness (r = –0.18; p = 0.014) and with cuddling(r = + 0.17; p = 0.016). No correlations among the child-rearing constructs were found. However, a trendemerged for the correlation between teasing/ridiculingand physical punishment (r = + 0.18; p = 0.014).

Sami and Norwegian samples

We next examined correlations between ethnic groups.Since we wished to explore cross-cultural differences be-

tween distinct and diverse ethnic entities, we decided tofocus solely on the Sami and Norwegian groups, and toomit the mixed/other subgroup.

As shown in Table 3, parental cuddling correlated in-versely with internalizing problems for the Sami group.Furthermore, a trend emerged for physical punishmentas a correlate of externalizing problems for the Norwe-gians, but not for the Sami. This difference in correlationpatterns for physical punishment between the ethnicgroups was significant.

In order to examine possible gender differenceswithin ethnic groups, correlations were calculated sepa-rately for boys and girls within the two ethnic groups.However, for these gender-by-ethnicity conditions thesamples were quite small. We found a difference in cor-relation patterns for Sami and Norwegian boys with re-spect to harsh treatment. The results are presented inTable 4.

A positive correlation between physical punishmentand externalizing problems was found for Norwegianboys, while the correlation was inverse for Sami boys.Teasing/ridiculing correlated positively with internaliz-ing problems for Norwegian boys, but inversely for Samiboys.

Internalizing Problems Scale Externalizing Problems Scale

Norwegian Sami Norwegian Sami(N = 63) (N = 66) (N = 63) (N = 67)

Mean CBCL scores 3.0 3.3 8.0 9.6SD (2.7) (3.2) (6.7) (7.5)

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLESMother’s age – 0.18 – 0.24 – 0.18 – 0.22Single parenthood – 0.06 + 0.35* + 0.13 + 0.20Parental education – 0.06 – 0.27* – 0.19 – 0.03

CHILD-REARING VARIABLESCuddling – 0.30* – 0.39*** – 0.08 – 0.25*Physical punishment + 0.17 + 0.05 + 0.37* # + 0.06Teasing/ridiculing + 0.27* – 0.00 + 0.13 – 0.09Permissiveness – 0.07 + 0.01 + 0.09 + 0.01

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Hatch mark # indicates significant difference between Sami and Norwegiancorrelations at 99 % confidence interval. Variations in N are due to missing data

Table 3 Mean CBCL and child-rearing scores and bi-variate correlations, Sami and Norwegian sub-sam-ples: correlations between demographic and child-rearing variables, and CBCL Internalizing andExternalizing Problems Scores

Internalizing scale Externalizing scale

Norwegian Sami Norwegian Sami

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls(N = 32) (N = 31) (N = 35) (N = 31) (N = 32) (N = 31) (N = 36) (N = 31)

Mean CBCL scores 3.7 2.3 2.8 3.9 10.0 5.9 9.9 9.2SD (2.9) (2.4) (2.8) (3.6) (7.1) (5.7) (7.1) (7.9)

Physical punishment + 0.02 + 0.29 – 0.06 + 0.17 + 0.34SB + 0.33 – 0.16NB + 0.30Teasing/ridiculing + 0.25SB + 0.22 – 0.24NB + 0.19 + 0.09 + 0.05 – 0.28 + 0.13

Significant difference between Sami and Norwegian correlations at 99 % confidence interval is marked by initials(SB Sami boys; NB Norwegian boys). Variations in N are due to missing data

Table 4 Bivariate correlations separately for eachgender, Norwegian and Sami samples: Pearson’s cor-relations between harsh treatment variables andCBCL Internalizing and Externalizing Scales

14 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) Vol. 13, No. 1© Steinkopff Verlag 2004

■ Multiple regression analyses

Multiple regression analyses for the total cohort werethen performed to examine the independent contribu-tions of each of the parenting dimensions to child be-havior patterns (Table 5).

After child gender,ethnicity,and family demographicvariables had been controlled for, the proportion of vari-ance explained by the child-rearing constructs re-mained significant, both for internalizing problems(�R2 = 0.05) and externalizing problems (�R2 = 0.06).Thus, as a block, parental cuddling, physical punish-ment, teasing/ridiculing and parental style of restric-tiveness – permissiveness was a minor but significantpredictor of child behavior problems, as measured bymothers’ CBCL reports. Child gender, ethnicity, familydemographic variables, and child-rearing variablestaken together yielded R2 = 0.17 for internalizing prob-lems, and R2 = 0.17 for externalizing problems. When allchild-rearing variables and control variables were en-tered simultaneously, single parenthood, young mater-nal age and parental cuddling were all significant corre-lates of internalizing problems. Physical punishment,young maternal age, parental cuddling and child genderwere significant correlates of externalizing problems.These findings were consistent with those of the previ-ous correlational analyses.

Discussion

The findings of this study are in accord with those re-ported from other studies on correlates of children’s be-havioral problems.Across cultures, the general picture isthat parental expression of affection for their childrenand physical closeness and warmth in the parent-childrelationship are vital to children’s mental health. On theother hand, harsh discipline and physical punishmentare associated with behavioral problems. However, thispicture needs some modifications.First, there is the pos-sibility that boys and girls may respond differently toparticular child-rearing practices; next, that the effectsof child-rearing practices on child development mayvary in different cultures.

From our study, it would seem that for Sami children,in particular for Sami boys, a tougher disciplinaryparental style, aimed at hardening children in order toenable them to survive in a harsh environment, may bebeneficial rather than harmful. Such a positive effect onchild development would be in accordance with thestrong value placed on inner strength, hardiness and in-dependence in Sami culture [24], and with the more fre-quent practices of teasing/ridiculing and physical pun-ishment in Sami child-rearing [25]. As a mode ofsocialization, teasing/ridiculing has also been observedin other circumpolar peoples, such as the Inuits [9].

However, it might be equally true that from a Norwe-gian perspective, teasing/ridiculing and physical pun-

Internalizing scale Externalizing scale

CumR2 ∆R2 F Change β CumR2 ∆R2 F Change β

Block 1 0.01 0.01 0.41 0.05 0.05 2.9*

Child Genderc + 0.02 + 0.16*

EthnicitySamia – 0.05 + 0.13Norwegianb – 0.09 + 0.01

Block 2

Demographic variables 0.12 0.11 7.7*** 0.11 0.06 4.4**Mother’s age – 0.19* – 0.21**Single parenthood + 0.23** + 0.11Parental education – 0.02 – 0.01

Block 3

Child-rearing variables 0.17 0.05 2.9* 0.17 0.06 3.4*Cuddling – 0.17* – 0.14*Physical punishment + 0.09 + 0.22**Teasing/ridiculing + 0.14 + 0.03Permissiveness – 0.01 + 0.03

a indicates Sami = 1, Norwegian = 0, and mixed/other ethnicities = 0; b indicates Norwegian = 1, Sami = 0, andmixed/other ethnicities = 0; c boys = 1, girls = 0CumR2 cumulative R2, the proportion of the total variance in problem scores explained by the blocks included inthe whole model; ∆R2 the increase in the proportion of the total variance explained by the block that is added tothe model; β standardized regression coefficients* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Table 5 Hierarchical multiple regression analyseswith demographic and child-rearing variables en-tered in blocks, as predictors of CBCL Internalizingand Externalizing Problems Scores

C. Javo et al. 15Parenting correlates of child behavior problems in a multiethnic community sample

ishment are bad. Norwegian children did not seem toprofit by harsh treatment, but rather the opposite. InScandinavian culture, teasing/ridiculing as a mode ofchild socialization is not so common, and hitting a childis strictly forbidden [47]. Norwegian parents who im-pose harsh discipline thus do not share their culture’saccepted norms in child-rearing,and probably representa somewhat deviant type of parenting behavior.

Our findings are congruent with other cross-culturalstudies of the associations between harsh discipline andchild outcomes. In cultures in which physical disciplineis used more frequently, such as among African Ameri-cans [22, 38], it has been found that, unlike in EuropeanAmericans, punitive and directive parental disciplinarystrategies were not, or to a lesser degree, associated withnegative behavioral outcomes in children, such as hos-tility, resistance, aggression and antisocial behavior [12,31, 51]. What might be a risk factor for disruptive be-havior in white Euro-American cultures may not be soin other cultures.A variety of interpretations can be gen-erated to explain this; one might be that harsh disciplinehas different meanings across different cultures.

In Sami child-rearing, harsh disciplinary methodsand toughening the child were balanced by physicalcloseness/love, and a permissive parenting style thatgave the child a high degree of autonomy [24, 25]. Wewould emphasize that in order to predict the soundnessand effectiveness of a specific parenting method withina specific culture, it is essential to understand the placeof the method within the broader child-rearing struc-ture of that culture.

Parental cuddling represents the warmth – rejectiondimension in child-rearing, and signals mother – childintimacy and affection. The inverse association of thisvariable with both internalizing and externalizing childproblem scores suggests its importance as a protectivefactor in the development of child behavior.However,wecannot know whether a lower level of parental cuddlingwas a cause of the higher child problem scores, orwhether difficult children elicited less cuddling. Today,most researchers seem to believe that the influence ofspecific child-rearing practices should be minimized,while the importance of caregivers’ emotional attitudestowards their children, and the interpersonal context inwhich particular forms of behavior occur, should begiven more weight (e. g. [8]). Furthermore, some re-search suggests that a positive maternal attitude andpositive active involvement are capable of neutralizingthe effects of harsh discipline, and otherwise disruptivetypes of parental behavior [35].

In this study, we found that the influence of parentingon behavioral problems was stronger on girls than boys.Other studies differ as to their findings on gender ef-fects. In some studies, the influences of parenting onchild adjustment appeared to be similar [51]; in others,parenting is suggested to be more predictive of prob-

lematic adjustment for boys than girls [39]. Differentsamples (e. g. clinical or high-risk samples vs. normativesamples), as well as the use of different methods, mightexplain these discrepancies. It is also possible that gen-der differences vary between cultures. More research isneeded in this area.

Our study suggested that there are associations be-tween family demographics and child-rearing con-structs. These findings are in accord with previous stud-ies from other countries, which have reported greateruse of harsh treatment in lower SES groups and in fam-ilies with low levels of parental education (e. g. [16, 37]).Furthermore, the associations of family demographicfactors with child problems scores that were found inthis study are consistent with findings from other stud-ies done in the field. Such factors include low maternalage [16], single parenthood [21, 33], and lower levels ofparental education [7, 16, 20]. Family demographic fac-tors may also have indirect effects on child problems viatheir influence on child-rearing factors. We found, how-ever, that the effects of child-rearing variables generallypersisted in multiple regression analyses that controlledfor demographic variables, indicating independent ef-fects of parenting variables.

■ Methodological considerations and limitations of the study

The ethnic samples were highly similar in terms of fam-ily demographic variables, which strengthens the study.As mentioned previously, the cohort might be regardedas a “best case” sample, in which all families enjoyed ahigh standard of living. Hence, ethnicity was not con-founded by social poverty, which has been a problem inmany other cross-cultural studies of ethnic minorities.

Furthermore, the children’s ethnicity was defined bya strict criterion, i. e. that both parents had the same eth-nicity. In cross-cultural studies, ethnicity has often beenpoorly defined, leaving the validity of ethnic differencesuncertain.

The study is also strengthened by the fact that 93 % ofeligible families were invited to participate in it, and bya relatively high response rate. Thus, it is a reasonablyrepresentative sample of the particular age group withinthe Sami core area.

The semi-structured interview method carried outby an interviewer of the same ethnic background as thesubjects (Sami or Norwegian), should provide validcross-cultural data on parenting. The cross-cultural va-lidity of our study was further strengthened by high in-ter-rater reliability between interviewers of differentethnic backgrounds.

However, it should be noted that our study had anumber of limitations. Our estimates of both parentingpractices and behavioral problems in children were ex-

16 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) Vol. 13, No. 1© Steinkopff Verlag 2004

clusively obtained from parents’ reports. Parental re-sponses may reflect the extent to which parents are so-cially aware of acceptable parenting practices. Use ofcomplementary methods of obtaining information andexamination across contexts (e. g. kindergarten) wouldhave been beneficial. Moreover, responses from only oneparent per child were used in this paper. One reason forthis was that 16 % of the mothers were single mothers,and the fathers were not interviewed. It would have beendesirable to have data from two parents and to test rela-tions between the interview responses and CBCL scoresfor both to avoid the confounding that might occurwhen the same parent is the source of both kinds of data.However, findings from other studies suggest that par-ents can provide internally consistent and well-differen-tiated accounts of both their parenting practices andtheir children’s problem behaviors [51].

Child-rearing items pertaining to different domainsmight not have been precise enough to accurately mea-sure the specific topics under investigation. The validityof the child-rearing constructs might be questioned, es-pecially the cuddling index, which encompassed onlytwo items. Additionally, low variance for some of thechild-rearing constructs could have limited the correla-tions with other variables. The amount and variance inchild problem scores also tended to be low. However, theresults of our correlation analyses are consistent withthe findings of other studies.

The sample sizes were small, and it is possible thatsome of the differences obtained can be explained by theinfluence of individual subjects. On the other hand,small Ns yield low statistical power, making it more dif-ficult to obtain significant differences. Yet again, thelarge number of statistical comparisons performed in-creased the possibility of making chance findings. How-ever, applying very strict criteria for statistical signifi-cance to avoid chance findings would have increased therisk of incurring type II errors. The findings of thisstudy therefore require replication.

Although both positive and negative dimensions ofparenting were studied together so that their separateand combined effects could be estimated and compared,many important factors pertaining to parenting andfamily life were not explored, in particular, parental in-

consistency in child-rearing, parental psychopathology,marital discord, the father’s role in child-rearing, familysupport, and life events. We examined neither the qual-ity of parent-child attachment, nor individual charac-teristics of children,such as temperament.Furthermore,we chose to analyze the main scales of the CBCL and notthe syndrome scales because of low power. Researchsuggests that different subtypes or distinct profiles ofbehavior problems may be associated with different par-enting strategies [51]. To identify complex and multiplepathways between environmental risk factors and childbehavior problems, and to identify distinct subgroups, avariable-oriented strategy such as ours may be unsuit-able. However, these aims lay beyond the scope of thepresent study.

Our study included parents of four-year-olds. Abroader age group could have yielded other conclusions.As discontinuity from early childhood into adulthoodappears to be the pattern in many child behavior vari-ables, parental behavior that might show a relationshipwith child behavior at one age, might fail to show a sim-ilar relationship at a later age. Prospective longitudinalstudies are needed to supply this kind of information.

Conclusions

This study was aimed at generating comparative data onparenting correlates of child behavior problems fromculturally diverse groups. It suggests that parenting riskfactors found for one culture might not be found to haveeffects in another culture, or they might operate differ-ently in the two cultures. It also suggests that gender sus-ceptibility to parenting risk factors might vary. In orderto establish any etiological relationship between do-mains of parenting and child behavior problems cross-culturally, further studies are warranted.

■ Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Ante Javo for hisdiligent work in collecting data, and Bjørn Helge Handegård for as-sistance with the statistical procedures. The study was made possibleby grants from the Norwegian Council for Mental Health (NGO), theNorwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation and the MedicalResearch in Finnmark and Northern Troms program.

References

1. Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for theChild Behavior Checklist/4–18 and1991 Profile. University of Vermont, De-partment of Psychiatry, Burlington

2. Anderson KE, Lytton H, Romney DM(1986) Mothers’ interactions with nor-mal and conduct-disordered boys: whoaffects whom? Developmental Psychol-ogy 22:604–609

3. Baumrind D (1971) Current patterns ofparental authority. Developmental Psy-chology Monograph 4:1–103

4. Baumrind D (1972) An exploratorystudy of socialization effects on blackchildren: some black-white compar-isons. Child Devel 43:261–267

5. Baumrind D, Black AE (1967) Socializa-tion practices associated with dimen-sions of competence in preschool boysand girls. Child Development 38:291–327

6. Becker WC (1964) Consequences of dif-ferent kinds of parental discipline. In:Hoffman ML, Hoffman LW (eds) Re-view of Child Development Research.Vol. 1. Russel Sage Foundation, NewYork, pp 169–208

C. Javo et al. 17Parenting correlates of child behavior problems in a multiethnic community sample

7. Benasich AA, Brooks-Gunn J (1996)Maternal attitudes and knowledge ofchild-rearing: associations with familyand child outcomes. Child Develop-ment 67:1186–1205

8. Bowlby J (1989) The making and break-ing of affectional bonds. Routledge,London

9. Briggs JL (1998) Inuit morality play: theemotional education of a three-year-old. Yale University Press, New Haven,CT

10. Brislin RW (1993) Understanding cul-ture’s influence on behaviour. HarcourtBrace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, Texas

11. Darling N, Steinberg L (1993) Parentingstyle as context: an integrative model.Psychol Bull 113:487–496

12. Deater-Deckerd K, Dodge K, Bates JE,Pettit GS (1996) Physical disciplineamong African-American and Euro-pean-American mothers: links to chil-dren’s externalizing behaviors. DevelPsychol 32:1065–1072

13. Emery RE,Tuer M (1993) Parenting andthe marital relationship. In: Luster T,Okagaki L (eds) Parenting, an ecologi-cal perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates, Hillsdale, New Jersey

14. Eriksen KA, Niemi E (1981) TheFinnish threat. Security problems andminority policy in the North. Univer-sitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 1860–1940

15. Eron LD (1982) Parent-child interac-tion, television violence and aggressionof children. Am Psychologist 37:197–211

16. Fox RA, Platz D, Bentley KS (1995) Ma-ternal factors related to parenting prac-tices, developmental expectations, andperceptions of child behavior prob-lems. J Genet Psychol 156:431–441

17. Gotlib IH, Goodman SH (1999) Chil-dren of parents with depression. In: Sil-verman WK, Ollendick TH (eds) Devel-opmental issues in the clinicaltreatment of children and adolescents.Allyn & Bacon, New York, pp 415–432

18. Greenberg MT, Speltz ML, DeKlyen M,Jones K (2001) Correlates of clinical re-ferral for early conduct problems: vari-able- and person-oriented approaches.Devel Psychopathol 13:255–276

19. Hackett L, Hackett R (1993) Parentalideas of normal and deviant child be-haviour. A comparison of two ethnicgroups. Bri J Psychiatry 162:353–357

20. Hackett R, Hackett L, Bhakta P, GowersS (1999) The prevalence and associa-tions of psychiatric disorder in childrenin Kerala, South India. J Child Psychol &Psychiatry 40:801–807

21. Hetherington EM, Bridges M, InsabellaGM (1998) What matters? What doesnot? Five perspectives on the associa-tion between marital transitions andchildren’s adjustment. Am Psychologist53:167–184

22. Hurd EP, Moore C, Rogers R (1995)Quiet success: parenting strengthsamong African Americans. Families inSociety 76:434–443

23. Javo C, Heyerdahl S, Rønning JA (2000)Parent reports of child behavior prob-lems in young Sami children: a cross-cultural comparison. Europ Child Ado-lesc Psychiatry 9:202–211

24. Javo C, Alapack R, Rønning JA, Heyer-dahl S (2003) Parental values and ethnicidentity in indigenous Sami families: aqualitative study. Family Process42:151–164

25. Javo C, Rønning JA, Heyerdahl S (2003)Child-rearing in an indigenous Samipopulation in Norway: a cross- culturalcomparison of parental attitudes andexpectations. Scand J Psychol. In press

26. Kagitcibasi C, Berry JW (1989) Cross-cultural psychology: current researchand trends. Ann Rev Psychol 40:493–531

27. Kelley ML, Power TG, Wimbush DD(1992) Determinants of disciplinarypractices in low-income Black mothers.Child Devel 63:573–582

28. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE,Nizam A (1998) Applied regressionanalysis and other multivariable meth-ods. 3rd edn. Duxbury Press, PacificGrove, California, pp 400–401

29. Lytton H (1990) Child and parent ef-fects in boys’ conduct disorder: a rein-terpretation. Devel Psychol 26:683–697

30. Maccoby EE, Martin J (1983) Socializa-tion in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In: Hetherington EM(ed) Handbook of Child Psychology,Vol. 4, Socialization, Personality andSocial Development, Wiley, New York,pp 1–101

31. McLeod JD,Kruttschnitt C,Dornfield M(1994) Does parenting explain the ef-fects of structural conditions on chil-dren’s antisocial behavior? A compari-son of Blacks and Whites. Social Forces73:575–604

32. Newson J, Newson E (1968) Four yearsold in an urban society. Penguin BooksLtd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK

33. O’Connor TG, Dunn J, Jenkins JM, Pick-ering K, Rabash J (2001) Family settingsand children’s adjustment: differentialadjustment within and across families.Bri J Psychiatry 179:110–115

34. Pettit GS, Bates JE (1989) Family inter-action patterns and children’s behaviorproblems from infancy to 4 years. De-velop Psychol 25:413–420

35. Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA (1997)Supportive parenting, ecological con-text,and children’s adjustment: a seven-year longitudinal study. Child Devel68:908–923

36. Plomin R (1995) Genetics and chil-dren’s experiences in the family. J ChildPsychol Psychiatry 36:33–68

37. Portes PR, Dunham RM, Williams S(1986) Assessing child-rearing style inecological settings: its relation to cul-ture, social class, early age interventionand scholastic achievement.Adolescent2:723–735

38. Querido JG, Warner TD, Eyberg SM(2002) Parenting styles and child be-havior in African American families ofpreschool children. J Clin Child Psychol31:272–277

39. Rothbaum F, Weisz J (1994) Parentalcaregiving and child externalizing be-havior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 116:55–74

40. Rowe DC (1994) The limits of family in-fluence: genes, experience, and behav-ior. The Guildford Press, New York

41. Rutter M (1985) Resilience in the face ofadversity: Protective factors and re-silience to psychiatric disorder. Bri JPsychiatry 147:598–611

42. Rutter M (1989) Psychiatric disorder inparents as a risk factor for children. In:Shaffer D, Philips I, Enger NB (eds) Pre-vention of mental disorder, alcohol andother drug use in children and adoles-cents. Office for Substance Abuse, USDepartment of Health and Human Ser-vices, Rockville, MD, pp 157–189

43. Sameroff AJ, Seifer R (1990) Early con-tributors to developmental risk. In: RolfJ, Masten AS, Cicchetti D, NuechterleinKH, Weintraub S (eds) Risk and protec-tive factors in the development of Psy-chopathology. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp 52–66

44. Schaefer ES (1959) A circumplex modelfor maternal behavior. J Abnorm SocPsychology 59:226–235

45. Silberg J, Rutter M, Neale M, Eaves L(2001) Genetic moderation of environ-mental risk for depression and anxietyin adolescent girls. Bri J Psychiatry179:116–121

46. Sines JO (1987) Influence of the homeand family environment on childhooddysfunction. In: Lahey BB, Kazdin AE(eds) Advances in Clinical Child Psy-chology. Plenum Press, New York

47. Solheim JS (1982) A cross-cultural ex-amination of use of corporal punish-ment on children: A focus on Swedenand the United States. Child Abuse andNeglect 6:147–154

48. Sourander A (2001) Emotional and be-havioural problems in a sample ofFinnish three-year-olds. Europ ChildAdolesc Psychiatry 10:98–104

49. Sroufe LA (1989) Pathways to adapta-tion and maladaption: Psychopathol-ogy as a developmental deviation. In:Cicchetti D (ed) Rochester Symposiumon Developmental PsychopathologyVol.1. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesInc, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 13–40

18 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2004) Vol. 13, No. 1© Steinkopff Verlag 2004

50. Steinberg L, Darling N, Fletcher A,Brown BB, Dornbusch S (1995) Author-itative parenting and adolescent adjust-ment: an ecological journey. In: Moen P,Elder G, Luscher K (eds) Examininglives in context: perspectives on theecology of human development. Amer-ican Psychological Association, Wash-ington, DC, pp 423–466

51. Stormshak EA, Bierman KL, McMahonRJ, Lengua LJ (2000) Parenting prac-tices and child disruptive behaviorproblems in early elementary school. JClin Child Psychol 29:17–29

52. Strassberg Z, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, BatesJE (1994) Spanking in the home andchildren’s subsequent aggression to-ward kindergarten peers. Developmentand psychopathology 6:445–461

53. Wachs TD (1992) The Nature of Nur-ture. Sage Publications, Newbury Park,London