Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:55:21.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Informant-specific reports of peer and teacher relationships buffer the effects of harsh parenting on children's oppositional defiant disorder during kindergarten

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

Danielle S. Roubinov*
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco
W. Thomas Boyce
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco
Nicole R. Bush
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco
*
Author for correspondence: Danielle S. Roubinov, University of California, San Francisco, Department of Psychiatry, 3333 California Avenue, Suite 465, San Francisco, CA94118; E-mail: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Harsh and restrictive parenting are well-established contributors to the development of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) among children. However, few studies have explored whether interpersonal relationships that develop outside the family environment attenuate the risk for ODD that is associated with harsh parenting. The current study tested multireporter measures of teacher–child closeness and peer acceptance as moderators of the association between harsh parenting and children's ODD as children's social worlds widen during the kindergarten year (N = 338 children, 48% girls, M age = 5.32 years). Harsh parenting interacted with peer nominations of peer acceptance and children's report of teacher–child closeness to predict children's ODD symptoms in the spring, adjusting for fall symptoms. Children exposed to harsh parenting exhibited greater symptom increases when they were less liked/accepted playmates and in the context of lower teacher–child closeness. However, harsh parenting was not associated with symptom change among children with higher levels of peer-nominated acceptance and those who reported closer relationships with teachers. There were no significant interactions using teacher's report of peer acceptance or teacher's report of teacher–child closeness. Findings highlight positive peer and teacher relationships as promising targets of intervention among children exposed to harsh parenting and support the importance of assessing multiple perspectives of children's social functioning.

Type
Regular Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is one of the most common childhood behavior disorders, with prevalence rates in community samples of young children ranging from 6.6% (Egger & Angold, Reference Egger and Angold2006) to 13.4% (Lavigne, LeBailly, Hopkins, Gouze, & Binns, Reference Lavigne, LeBailly, Hopkins, Gouze and Binns2009). Early onset ODD may be particularly problematic, as symptomatology becomes increasingly resistant to treatment after age 6 (Speltz, McClellan, DeKlyen, & Jones, Reference Speltz, McClellan, DeKlyen and Jones1999) and is associated with elevated risk for poor outcomes in adolescence and adulthood, including antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, criminal offenses and incarceration, and conduct disorder (Aebi, Plattner, Metzke, Bessler, & Steinhausen, Reference Aebi, Plattner, Metzke, Bessler and Steinhausen2013; Burke, Rowe, & Boylan, Reference Burke, Rowe and Boylan2014; Costello, Reference Costello2007; Nock, Kazdin, Hiripi, & Kessler, Reference Nock, Kazdin, Hiripi and Kessler2007; Whittinger, Langley, Fowler, Thomas, & Thapar, Reference Whittinger, Langley, Fowler, Thomas and Thapar2007). Developmental cascade models suggest that contextual, parental, and child risk factors operate through interactive, multilevel pathways to influence onset and change of ODD symptoms over time (Dishion & Patterson, Reference Dishion, Patterson and Cicchetti2016). Cascading effects are also pertinent to the study of resilience, highlighting how protective processes in one system can “spillover” to promote positive adaptation when another system is at risk (Masten & Cicchetti, Reference Masten, Cicchetti and Cicchetti2016). In the current study, we explored the potential protective role of positive peer and teacher relationships for the development of ODD symptoms among children exposed to harsh parenting in the family system.

The association between negative parenting practices, including harsh, rejecting parenting and punitive parental discipline (Alink et al., Reference Alink, Mesman, Van Zeijl, Stolk, Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg and Koot2009; Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Swisher, Reference Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice and Swisher2005), and children's oppositional behavior problems has a long history in the mental health literature (Baumrind, Reference Baumrind1967; Hinshaw & Lee, Reference Hinshaw, Lee, Mash and Barkley2003). As described by coercion theory, harsh parenting contributes to children's aggression and conduct problems through a pattern of problematic parent–child interactions whereby caregivers acquiesce to children's defiance and aggression, inadvertently reinforcing such aversive behaviors (Patterson, Reference Patterson1982). As caregivers become increasingly frustrated and rely on harsh parenting practices, a cycle of negative parent–child interactions and child noncompliance is established, providing a foundation for the development of ODD symptoms (Hinshaw & Anderson, Reference Hinshaw, Anderson, Mash and Barkley1996; Patterson, Reference Patterson1982, Reference Patterson, Reid, Patterson and Snyder2002). Although the relationship between harsh parenting and children's behavior problems is likely bidirectional, research suggests the influence of negative and coercive parenting on oppositional behavior is stronger than the reciprocal effect of children's behavior on parenting (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Dishion, Shaw, Wilson, Winter and Patterson2014).

Beyond Parenting: Classroom-Based Interpersonal Relationships and ODD

The school environment has been described as “an agent of developmental change” (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, Reference Pianta, Steinberg and Rollins1995), a designation that may be particularly true during the transition to kindergarten. During this time, children encounter new interpersonal challenges and develop relationships outside of the family environment (i.e., teacher–child, peer to peer) that profoundly impact the formation of socioemotional competencies (Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, Reference Silver, Measelle, Armstrong and Essex2010). The significance and function of the teacher–child relationship has frequently been framed in terms of extended attachment theory, and a high-quality teacher–child relationship is proposed to function in a manner analogous to the secure base of a child's primary attachment, the parent (Pianta, Reference Pianta1997; Verschueren & Koomen, Reference Verschueren and Koomen2012). Of specific relevance to the current study's focus on ODD symptomatology, more positive student–teacher relationships are associated with lower levels of aggressive behavior (Meehan, Hughes, & Cavell, Reference Meehan, Hughes and Cavell2003) and improvements in aggression over time (Hamre & Pianta, Reference Hamre and Pianta2001; Miller-Lewis et al., Reference Miller-Lewis, Sawyer, Searle, Mittinty, Sawyer and Lynch2014). Finding from a randomized controlled trial strengthen our understanding of these dynamics, showing that an intervention to improve the teacher–child relationship resulted in greater reductions in children's externalizing behavior when compared to a control condition (Morrison & Bratton, Reference Morrison and Bratton2010).

Children's early relationships with their peers have similarly been associated with ODD symptomatology (Dishion & Tipsord, Reference Dishion and Tipsord2011). Peer acceptance is one of the most well-studied aspects of peer relationships and bears robust associations with better emotional and behavioral outcomes (for review, see Gifford-Smith & Brownell, Reference Gifford-Smith and Brownell2003). Theoretical and empirical research on the transition to kindergarten suggests that acceptance within one's peer group creates socialization opportunities and a sense of belongingness that influences longer term adjustment (Ladd, Reference Ladd1990). In a manner analogous to parent–child and teacher–child attachment relationships, higher quality peer relationships have been conceptualized as a “secure base” from which to explore the novel school environment and cope with new challenges that emerge (Ladd & Price, Reference Ladd and Price1987). Although it is well accepted that positive peer relationships are an essential component of children's healthy development (Holmes, Kim-Spoon, & Deater-Deckard, Reference Holmes, Kim-Spoon and Deater-Deckard2016), empirical research has primarily focused upon the detrimental consequences of negative peer influences (e.g., “peer contagion”; Dishion & Tipscord, Reference Dishion and Tipsord2011). Much less is known about the potential resilience-promoting roles of positive peer relations among adversity-exposed youth (Masten & Cicchetti, Reference Masten, Cicchetti and Cicchetti2016).

Positive classroom relationships as potential buffers of harsh parenting effects on ODD

While harsh parenting heightens the risk for ODD symptomology, the negative consequences are not ubiquitous, suggesting the presence of resilience processes (Cicchetti & Curtis, Reference Cicchetti and Curtis2007). Examinations of resilient functioning are of central importance to integrative perspectives on developmental psychopathology and enhance our understanding of how variable outcomes emerge under conditions of risk (Cicchetti, Reference Cicchetti1993). Just as children's development broadly unfolds across numerous environmental contexts, many interacting systems shape processes of risk and resilience (Leve & Cicchetti, Reference Leve and Cicchetti2016). In the current study, we examine the potential for positive relationships formed in the school context to serve in a protective manner for children reared in family environments characterized by higher levels of harsh parenting.

Although school-based relationships influence developmental outcomes in their own right, they may assume a more complex protective function for children reared in adverse home environments. Higher quality relationships with teachers can be reparative for children, revising maladaptive cognitive representations of interpersonal relationships set in motion by parental caregiving deficits (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, Reference Rhodes, Grossman and Resch2000). Empirically, more positive teacher–child relationships have been shown to buffer the relation between low maternal support and higher externalizing symptoms (Kiuru et al., Reference Kiuru, Laursen, Aunola, Zhang, Lerkkanen, Leskinen and Nurmi2016), as well as between parent–child conflict and children's behavioral misconduct (Wang, Brinkworth, & Eccles, Reference Wang, Brinkworth and Eccles2013). However, studies of such interactive effects have not produced uniform results. In other research, higher quality teacher–child relationships have exerted only main effects on children's externalizing behaviors, demonstrating no interactions with negative family characteristics to predict behavioral outcomes (Meehan et al., Reference Meehan, Hughes and Cavell2003; Silver et al., Reference Silver, Measelle, Armstrong and Essex2010). Of note, prior studies have predominantly relied upon teachers’ assessments of both the teacher–child relationship and children's externalizing behavior problems, a methodological limitation that may contribute to reporter biases and the lack of robust findings (Sabol & Pianta, Reference Sabol and Pianta2012).

Higher quality peer relationships may be similarly conceptualized as protective in the context of early negative family environments. Peer acceptance often determines access to collaborative academic activities and play groups at school (Ladd, Price, & Hart, Reference Ladd1990). These interpersonal contexts may provide critical opportunities for learning the type of adaptive social skills that are infrequently modeled within harsh and coercive parent–child interactions (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, Reference Bolger, Patterson and Kupersmidt1998). Children's negative self-perceptions have been associated with adverse family environments (Lynch & Cicchetti, Reference Lynch and Cicchetti1997) and the development of externalizing problems (Troop-Gordon & Ladd, Reference Troop-Gordon and Ladd2005), and may be improved when children have the support of accepting peers (Bolger et al., Reference Bolger, Patterson and Kupersmidt1998; Gruenenfelder, Harris, & Fend, Reference Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris and Fend2016). Among early adolescents, a protective role for more positive peer relationships has been found in the association between parental rejection (Sentse, Lindenberg, Omvlee, Ormel, & Veenstra, Reference Sentse, Lindenberg, Omvlee, Ormel and Veenstra2010) or low family cohesion (Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, Reference Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee and Sippola1996) and adolescents’ adjustment. Less is known about the interactive effects of familial and peer relationships on children's mental health during the transition to formal schooling. Evidence of cascading effects of peer acceptance and social competence at age 4 on internalizing/externalizing symptoms through middle childhood and adolescence underscores the importance of early identification of interpersonal risk (and protective) factors for adversity-exposed youth (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, Reference Bornstein, Hahn and Haynes2010). This may be particularly true given that peer relationships and social networks are more malleable when children are younger and become increasingly fixed as children mature (Bukowski, Cillessen, & Velasquez, Reference Bukowski, Cillessen, Velasquez, Brett, Larsen and Card2012; Poulin & Chan, Reference Poulin and Chan2010).

The current study examined the potential protective roles of positive teacher–child and peer relationships on the prospective relation between harsh parenting and children's ODD symptoms across the course of the kindergarten year within in a community sample. To enrich our understanding of school-based interpersonal relationships and because perspectives may differ across informants, we collected a combination of child self-, peer, and teacher reports of interpersonal relationships in the school setting. This multi-informant approach may be particularly beneficial given the current study's context of the school environment as the nature of children's interactions with each other may be altered by the presence or surveillance of adults (Berg, Lansu, & Cillessen, Reference Berg, Lansu and Cillessen2015; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, Reference Perry, Kusel and Perry1988). We also used a unique three-informant measure of children's ODD symptoms to address limitations of previous literature that has disproportionately relied upon a single informant to provide information on children's social relationships and behavioral outcomes. We expected a significant interaction between harsh parenting and children's peer and teacher relationships such that greater levels of peer acceptance and a closer teacher–child relationship would attenuate the positive relation between harsh parenting and children's ODD symptoms.

Method

Participants

The present study draws participants from a larger longitudinal project of early adversity, social status, and mental and physical health (see Bush, Obradović, Adler, & Boyce, Reference Bush, Obradović, Adler and Boyce2011, for details). The sample was composed of 338 children (163 girls, 175 boys) between the ages of 4 and 6 years (M = 5.32 years, SD = 0.32) and was racially and ethnically diverse (19% African American, 11% Asian, 43% European or White, 4% Latino, 22% multiethnic, and 2% other). Primary caregivers who provided information about child and family characteristics were primarily biological mothers (87%), followed by biological fathers (9%), adoptive mothers (2.5%), biological grandmothers (0.6%), and individuals with other relationships with the child (0.9%). All caregivers are hereafter referred to as parents. Biological/adoptive parents were married or partnered (76%), separated or divorced (8%), never married (11%), or other (5%), and 12% of children were reared in a single-parent household. Average annual household income ranged from less than $10,000 to greater than $400,000 (M = $60–$79,999, Mdn = $80–$99,999). The highest level of household educational attainment ranged from less than a high school diploma (8 individuals) to advanced graduate degrees (145 individuals), and 75% had at least a college degree. The levels of both income and education are reflective of the greater Oakland and Berkeley metropolitan areas, from which the sample was drawn.

Procedures

Participants were recruited in waves during the fall of three consecutive kindergarten years from 29 classrooms in six public schools in the San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland, Albany, and Piedmont Unified School Districts).

Schools were selected in order to ensure accurate representation of the sociodemographic and ethnic characteristics of the larger metropolitan area. Families were recruited using home mailings and during in-person presentations at kindergarten welcome nights and school pick-up/drop-off locations. Invitations to participate were extended to all children within participating classrooms; however, families who were not fluent in English or Spanish were excluded to ensure adequate understanding of the study materials and questionnaires.

All data for the current study were collected once at the beginning (fall) of the school year, with the exception of ODD symptoms, which were assessed at the beginning and end (spring) of the year. Prior to the start of data collection, parents and teachers provided informed consent and children provided assent to participate. Self-reported parenting practices and parent reports of children's functioning were collected using mailed assessments that parents completed at home and returned to the study coordinator. Teachers completed evaluations of children's functioning using measures that were provided and collected upon completion at the child's school by the study coordinator. Children's peer nominations and self-reports of functioning were collected during structured individual interviews conducted in a private room at their school. Schools were compensated $20 per child enrolled, teachers were compensated $15 per child assessment returned, and families were compensated $50 at each time point. This study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Committee of Human Subjects of the University of California, San Francisco.

Measures

Harsh parenting.Footnote 1

Qualities of the parent–child relationship were evaluated with 18 items from the Child-Rearing Practices Report (Block, Reference Block1965) administered in fall of the kindergarten year. Selection of these items was based on prior factor analyses that identified and validated a 22-item restrictiveness scale on the Child-Rearing Practices Report (Deković, Janssens, & Gerris, Reference Deković, Janssens and Gerris1991; Rickel & Biasatti, Reference Rickel and Biasatti1982). Three items from the original factor were excluded due to their sexual nature that was deemed less developmentally applicable within our sample (e.g., I do not think children should be given sexual information), and 2 items were omitted because they were less substantively related to harsh parenting within our sample and geographic region (I instruct my child not to get dirty when he is playing and I don't want my child to be looked upon as different from others). The remaining 17 items evaluated harsh, restrictive, and controlling attitudes and practices related to child-rearing (e.g., I believe that scolding and criticism make a child improve; I do not allow my child to question my decisions; and I try to keep my child away from children or families whose ideas or values are different from our own). One additional item from the original scale was added to assess discipline strategies (I believe physical punishment to be the best way of disciplining), yielding a total of 18 items. All items were rated on 7-point scale ranging from extremely true to extremely untrue and were subsequently reverse-scored and averaged such that higher values of the composite indicated more harsh and restrictive parenting (α = 0.83).

Teacher–child closeness

Child report

In fall of the kindergarten year, children completed the Teacher–Child Closeness Scale of the Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI; Ablow & Measelle, Reference Ablow and Measelle2003). During administration of the BPI, children are presented with contrasting statements from two puppets that represent the positive or negative dimensions of different relationships, behaviors, and attributes and are asked with which puppet they most identify. The order of positive and negative items was counterbalanced and allocated equally between the two puppets to ensure children would not associate more strongly with one puppet versus another. Children's responses were videotaped and coded on a 7-point scale based on the specific statement that was endorsed and the degree to which the child endorsed it. Interrater reliability was high for both fall (interclass correlations; ICCs ≥ 0.91) and spring (ICCs ≥ 0.92). Scale scores reflect the average of all items with higher values representing greater teacher–child closeness.

Teacher report

Teachers completed the Teacher–Child Closeness Scale of the Health and Behavior Questionnaire (Essex et al., Reference Essex, Boyce, Goldstein, Armstrong, Kraemer and Kupfer2002) in fall of the kindergarten year for each participating child in their classroom. Closeness was measured with five items that assessed warmth and support between teachers and children (e.g., You share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child; If upset, this child will seek comfort from you). All items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies) and averaged such that higher values indicate greater teacher–child closeness.

Peer acceptance

Peer report

Children's reports of peer acceptance were collected using a peer nomination instrument designed to provide an objective assessment of children's social relationships based on sociometric techniques. The peer nomination instrument was administered in the fall of the kindergarten year during private interviews with each child that began with presentation of a display board containing individual pictures of children's classmates. The board included pictures of all children within the classroom (not only those participating in the study), allowing children to nominate the full range of potential classmates. Children were queried to ensure familiarity with their classmates and trained on the process of peer nomination by responding to example questions using the display board (e.g., Who runs fast? Who smiles a lot? Who helps teachers?). Once adequate comprehension was confirmed, interviewers asked children to identify the three classmates they “liked to play with (most) at school.” This item has been used extensively in prior research to obtain valid peer ratings of acceptance among children as young as 4 to 5 years old (Crick & Dodge, Reference Crick and Dodge1994; Laursen, Little, & Card, Reference Laursen, Little and Card2012). Children's nominations of peer acceptance were standardized within each class to address variability in classroom size (Range = 19–28; M = 21) and number of nominators per classroom (Range = 8–19; M = 14), thus representing a child's nomination score relative to other students in the classroom. Higher values on acceptance indicate more frequent nominations for this positively valenced item.

Teacher report

Proxy reports of children's peer acceptance were collected in fall of the kindergarten year using the peer acceptance scale on the teacher form of the MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ; Essex et al., Reference Essex, Boyce, Goldstein, Armstrong, Kraemer and Kupfer2002). Two items measured acceptance (and general social inclusion) by assessing the extent to which children were liked and invited to play with other children on a 4-point rating scale that ranged from 1 (not at all like child) to 4 (very much like child). Items were averaged with higher scores representative of greater acceptance/inclusion.

ODD

Symptoms of ODD were assessed during fall and spring of the kindergarten year using a composite of parent-, teacher-, and child-reported measures. The oppositional defiant scale from the parent and teacher versions of the HBQ (Essex et al., Reference Essex, Boyce, Goldstein, Armstrong, Kraemer and Kupfer2002) assesses each reporter's ratings of children's ODD symptoms, including the frequency with which the child argued with adults and peers, blamed others for personal mistakes, and had temper tantrums. Parents and teachers rated nine items each on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 (never or not true) to 2 (often or very true). Children's own perceptions of their oppositional behaviors were assessed using the BPI with six items that parallel those that are on the HBQ ODD measure (Ablow & Measelle, Reference Ablow and Measelle2003; rating scale described above). For each reporter, items were averaged with higher values representative of greater symptomatology.

It is widely accepted that multiple informants are preferred to single reporters when evaluating children's psychological symptoms. Particularly for ODD symptoms that may be expressed differently (or not at all) across varied settings or influenced by the specific perspective of the reporter, such multi-informant techniques may offer incremental validity as compared to single-reporter methods (Angold & Costello, Reference Angold and Costello1996; Owens & Hoza, Reference Owens and Hoza2003). Following procedures outlined by Kraemer et al. (Reference Kraemer, Measelle, Ablow, Essex, Boyce and Kupfer2003), we conducted principal component analyses (PCA) to integrate potentially orthogonal reports from parents, teachers, and children and obtain a multireporter index of children's ODD symptoms in both fall and spring of the kindergarten year. Parent, teacher, and child ODD average scores from the HBQ parent version, HBQ teacher version, and BPI, respectively, were simultaneously input into a PCA, and three components were extracted. The first component reflected a trait dimension (individual differences in ODD symptoms), the second component reflected a reporter/perspective dimension (characteristics of the informant that affect ODD symptom ratings), and the third component reflected a context dimension (attributes of the environment related to ODD symptom expression; see Obradović, Bush, Stamperdahl, Adler, & Boyce, Reference Obradovic, Bush, Stamperdahl, Adler and Boyce2010, for additional details). The present study used scores based on the first (trait) component of the ODD PCA as the dependent variable with higher values indicating greater levels of (trait) ODD and lower values indicating lower levels of (trait) ODD. The first component explained 43% of the variance in ODD symptoms in the fall and 48% of the variance in the spring.

Covariates

Parents reported on marital status; child sex, date of birth, and race/ethnicity; and family income and education. Marital status and race/ethnicity were dichotomized to create married/not married and racial/ethnic minority/nonminority subgroups, respectively. Children's age at the first day of kindergarten was calculated using their date of birth. In the current study, the total household income and highest educational level in the household were standardized and then averaged to represent family socioeconomic status (SES). Use of both income and education can provide a more robust measure of SES than either indicator alone (Adler, Bush, & Pantell, Reference Adler, Bush and Pantell2012), and has been used extensively in prior studies within this sample (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Obradović, Adler and Boyce2011; Hagan, Roubinov, Adler, Boyce, & Bush, Reference Hagan, Roubinov, Adler, Boyce and Bush2016; Roubinov, Hagan, Boyce, Adler, & Bush, Reference Roubinov, Hagan, Boyce, Adler and Bush2018).

Statistical analysis

Due to the nested nature of our data (children within classrooms), we evaluated whether it was necessary to use a multilevel modeling framework for our analyses. An intercept-only (null) model with children's ODD symptoms as the dependent variable yielded an ICC of 0.004. The near zero ICC suggests independence (rather than interdependence) in reports of children's ODD symptom within clusters; thus, multilevel modeling was not required (Lee, Reference Lee2000; Park & Lake, Reference Park and Lake2005). To remain conservative, we tested our models using both conventional linear regression and multilevel modeling; there were no differences in the pattern or significance of our findings between these analytic approaches. In favor of parsimony and ease of interpretation, we present the results of the linear regression models below.

Separate reporter-specific models were conducted to evaluate the moderating influence of children's peer or teacher relationships on the association between harsh parenting and ODD symptoms using (a) peer or teacher report of peer acceptance and (b) peer or teacher report of teacher–child closeness. Continuous predictors were mean-centered to address the effects of multicollinearity. Significant interactions between harsh parenting and peer or teacher–child relationships were probed for statistical significance at 1 SD above and below the mean per the recommendations of Aiken, West, and Reno (Reference Aiken, West and Reno1991). Given our interest in the change in ODD symptoms as children form new relationships and are exposed to social challenges during the transition to kindergarten, and the potential for baseline ODD symptoms to influence the quality of children's peer relationships, we adjusted for the effects of ODD symptomatology in fall of the kindergarten year. Gender, racial/ethnic minority status, SES, parents’ marital status, and children's age were also included in the models as covariates given extant research on their relations with harsh parenting and ODD symptoms and potential confounding effects. Attrition from fall to spring in our outcome data was minimal (n = 13, 3.8% of the sample) and handled using the recommended maximum-likelihood estimation procedure for missing data, the expectation-maximization algorithm (Schafer & Graham, Reference Schafer and Graham2002).

Results

Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among study variables

Note: ODD, oppositional defiant disorder. Gender coded as 0 = Male, 1 = Female. Ethnicity coded as 0 = Caucasian, 1 = non-Caucasian. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Child and teacher report of teacher–child closeness

Table 2 presents the results of linear regression models that predicted ODD symptoms from harsh parenting, child (or teacher) report of teacher–child closeness, and their interaction. Children's spring ODD symptoms were conditional upon an interaction between harsh parenting and children's own ratings of closeness with their teacher (unstandardized estimate = .179, SE = .065, p = .006). Examination of the simple slopes indicated that harsh parenting was significantly positively associated with changes in ODD symptoms from fall to spring at lower levels of teacher–child closeness (unstandardized estimate = .268, SE = .083, p = .001). However, among children who reported higher levels of teacher–child closeness, harsh parenting was unrelated to spring ODD symptoms, suggesting a protective effect (unstandardized estimate = –.060, SE = .077, p = .437). Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of these results, illustrating the positive relation between harsh parenting and ODD symptoms only for children who reported lower levels of closeness with their teacher.

Figure 1. The association between harsh parenting and spring oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms using the continuous measure of children's report of teacher–child closeness plotted at low (–1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of closeness.

Table 2. Linear regression models presenting unstandardized betas of children's ODD symptoms as a function of harsh parenting, peer acceptance, or teacher–child closeness (peer or teacher report), and their interaction

Note: SES, socioeconomic status. ODD, oppositional defiant disorder. Gender coded as 0 = Male, 1 = Female. Race/ethnicity coded as 0 = Caucasian, 1 = non-Caucasian. Marital status coded as 0 = Not married, 1 = Married.

In a parallel regression analysis utilizing teacher–child closeness as reported by teachers, harsh parenting did not interact with teacher reported closeness to predict children's ODD symptoms (p = .80). Neither predictor exhibited a main effect on changes in ODD, although coefficients for harsh parenting teacher reported closeness approached significance at the trend level.

Peer report of peer nominations of acceptance and teacher report of peer acceptance

Results of the second set of regression analyses examined the interaction of harsh parenting and peer (or teacher) report of peer acceptance on ODD symptoms (see Table 2). There was a significant interaction of harsh parenting and children's peer nominations of acceptance on children's ODD symptoms in spring of the kindergarten year (unstandardized estimate = –.009, SE = .004, p = .028). The interaction was probed and simple slopes indicated that harsh parenting was positively associated with ODD among children who were less frequently nominated by their peers as being a liked or desired playmate (unstandardized estimate = .240, SE = .083, p = .004). However, there was no significant relation between harsh parenting and ODD symptoms among children with higher levels of peer-nominated acceptance, suggesting a buffering effect of more positive peer regard (unstandardized estimate = .016, SE = .077, p = .83). Figure 2 illustrates the significant relation of harsh parenting to greater ODD symptomatology as observed only among children with less frequent nominations of peer acceptance. The final model explored the interaction of harsh parenting and children's peer acceptance using parallel reports of peer acceptance by teachers. Similar to results of teachers’ report of teacher–child closeness, there were no significant interactions between harsh parenting and teacher-reported peer acceptance in the prediction of children ODD symptoms (p = .81).

Figure 2. The association between harsh parenting and spring oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms using the continuous measure of peer nominations of acceptance plotted at low (–1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of peer acceptance.

Discussion

Children's behavior is influenced by interpersonal relationships in the multiple contexts in which they are reared. Within the family, harshness in the parent–child relationship increases children's risk for ODD symptoms (Erath, El-Sheikh, Hinnant, & Cummings, Reference Erath, El-Sheikh, Hinnant and Cummings2011; Gershoff, Reference Gershoff2002). The initiation of formal schooling introduces a new context where teacher and peer relationships may not simply operate alongside, but dynamically interact with, the parent–child relationships to shape children's development. Ecological theory describes novel environments as “setting the stage” for development, with proximal, relational processes serving as the mechanistic pathways through which developmental outcomes emerge (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979). Applying this framework to the current study, the kindergarten classroom may be conceptualized as “setting the stage” for familial, teacher, and peer relationships to influence children's ODD symptoms. Our results indicated that children's report of more positive teacher relationships and peer nominations of greater peer acceptance attenuated the relation between harsh parenting and ODD symptoms in spring of the school year, after adjusting for fall levels of ODD symptoms and key covariates.

Previous research of these questions has largely relied only upon teachers or caregivers to describe children's peer relationships, which can give rise to biases when the same individuals report on early behavior problems. The present study addressed this limitation by evaluating both peers’ nominations of how well accepted individual children are in their classroom and teachers’ report of peer acceptance. Findings indicated that peer nominations of acceptance interacted with harsh parenting in the prediction of children's ODD symptomatology such that harsh parenting was positively associated with changes in ODD symptoms among less accepted children, but was unrelated to ODD symptoms among children who received more frequent nominations of acceptance. Higher quality peer relationships may exert an attenuating influence by modeling or providing children with feedback about the aversive and inappropriate nature of oppositional behaviors acquired during harsh interactions with parents (Deater-Deckard, Reference Deater-Deckard2001). Our measure of children's peer nominations specifically asked children to indicate those peers with whom they liked to play at school. Although we cannot deduce the particular ways children interacted with their peers from this measure, it may be the case that those highly accepted and well-liked children are those who have learned to engage in more socially adaptive, prosocial ways that run counter to the argumentative, defiant behavior consistent with ODD. Peer acceptance and likability are positively correlated greater prosocial behavior, better emotion regulation, and more adaptive communication skills (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, Reference Gifford-Smith and Brownell2003). To the extent that positive and accepting peer relationships reinforce such behaviors, the relationship between harsh parenting and ODD symptoms may be reduced.

We also found that children's report of their closeness with their kindergarten teacher buffered the influence of harsh parenting on increasing ODD symptoms across the course of the kindergarten year. Higher quality relationships with teachers are protective for adolescents from risky family environments (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Brinkworth and Eccles2013); however, among younger samples, studies have largely explored the independent effects of parent and teacher relationships on children's behavior problems (e.g., Runions et al., Reference Runions, Vitaro, Cross, Shaw, Hall and Boivin2014). Given that early onset externalizing exerts a particularly enduring impact on behavior problems and becomes increasingly difficult to treat during later developmental periods (Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, Reference Webster-Stratton, Reid and Hammond2004), results of the current study may be important in highlighting teacher (and well as peer) relationships as a malleable target of intervention during early childhood. There are several pathways through which positive teacher–child relationships may exert a buffering role for children exposed to harsh parenting. Previous research suggests disruptions or deficiencies in one relational context provide an opportunity for support in another relational context to serve in a compensatory role for children (Sentse & Laird, Reference Sentse and Laird2010). Although there are clear differences in the structure and purpose of parent–child versus teacher–child relationships, warmth and support from closeness with a teacher may address relational deficits that emerge when children are exposed to harsh parenting. More specifically, parental warmth may improve children's self-regulation, positive emotionality, and responsiveness to directives to reduce unwanted oppositional behavior (Eisenberg et al., Reference Eisenberg, Zhou, Spinrad, Valiente, Fabes and Liew2005). When warmth and support are absent from the parent–child relationship, it is possible that analogous affective qualities with teachers foster these critical regulatory skills. More positive teacher relationships have also been shown to improve children's school liking, sense of belonging, and engagement (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, Reference Roorda, Koomen, Spilt and Oort2011), and these factors can serve as deterrents to the emergence of behavior problems (Hirschfield & Gasper, Reference Hirschfield and Gasper2011; Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Stormshak, Reference Wang, Selman, Dishion and Stormshak2010).

It is worth noting that neither teacher reports of children's peer acceptance nor their closeness with individual children in their classroom moderated the association between harsh parenting and longitudinal changes in ODD symptoms. There are several possible interpretations of the differential influence of peer and teacher relationships as reported by peers compared to teachers. It is possible that teachers may not observe or be fully aware of the nature of peer-to-peer interactions that form the basis for children's peer nominations, especially those that occur on the playground or in other group settings where supervising adults must divide their attention across a large number of children (Blake, Kim, & Lease, Reference Blake, Kim and Lease2011). This line of reasoning assumes that children's peer nominations are more valid or comprehensive as compared to teacher reports. Alternatively, it may be the case that teacher and child reports do not differ in accuracy, but rather capture varied perspectives on the nature of children's peer relationships. As is the case any time specific informants are used to assess a particular construct, consideration must be given to the lens through which the individual is appraising that construct (Kraemer et al., Reference Kraemer, Measelle, Ablow, Essex, Boyce and Kupfer2003). For example, children's peer nominations and teachers’ reports may be derived from considerably different social contexts: teachers’ evaluations may be highly informed by peer-to-peer behavior within the boundaries and routine of the classroom environment, while children's peer nominations may be more strongly based upon less structured free play, recess periods, or extracurricular contacts (Rubin, Bukowski, & Bowker, Reference Rubin, Bukowski and Bowker2015). Given the vantage point of teachers, it may be the case that their evaluations reflect more global aspects of children's peer relationships or social functioning, while children's nominations assess more day-to-day, lived experiences. Regarding teacher–child relationships, teachers’ personality characteristics, self-efficacy, and level of experience have been shown to influence their report (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, & Mashburn, Reference Hamre, Pianta, Downer and Mashburn2008), while children's perspective may be affected by the overall difficulty or ease of their school transition (Harrison, Clarke, & Ungerer, Reference Harrison, Clarke and Ungerer2007). Although multi-informant studies of younger children's social functioning are scarce, previous research suggests that teacher and child reports may provide unique perspectives on to the quality of children's social relationships (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, Reference Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd2002; Meehan et al., Reference Meehan, Hughes and Cavell2003; White, Reference White2016). More broadly, this is an area ripe for future inquiry. Building on the foundation of extant research, follow-up studies are well positioned to provide important information about the nonoverlapping and/or shared contributions of different reporters to varied domains of children's health and development. The multiple-informants approach to assessment has been compared to a “thick curtain punctuated by tiny holes” (Kagan, Reference Kagan2009, p. 23), where each curtain hole may offer an ostensibly different perspective on a singular construct of interest. While such an approach poses a challenge, it also offers a significant opportunity for researchers to elucidate when, how, and for what developmental outcomes self-reports and proxy reports of children's socioemotional functioning can be integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of early development.

The focus on the transition into formal schooling in the present study is important for understanding longer term outcomes. Kindergarten initiates children into the academic context and introduces new roles, social environments, and the need to make use of higher level interpersonal skills in relationships with authority figures and peers (Ladd & Price, Reference Ladd and Price1987; Seung Lam & Pollard, Reference Seung Lam and Pollard2006). The nature of interactions with peers (Bornstein et al., Reference Bornstein, Hahn and Haynes2010) and teachers (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, Reference Jerome, Hamre and Pianta2009; Pianta et al., Reference Pianta, Steinberg and Rollins1995) during the early school years appear at least moderately stable over time and predict later academic achievement (Konold, Jamison, Stanton-Chapman, & Rimm-Kaufman, Reference Konold, Jamison, Stanton-Chapman and Rimm-Kaufman2010) and mental health outcomes (van Lier & Koot, Reference van Lier and Koot2010). Furthermore, transactional models highlight reciprocal relations between children's social competencies and developmental outcomes over time, and suggest the qualities of early peer and teacher relationship can set in motion “cascading” processes that affect functioning into later developmental periods (Obradović, Burt, & Masten, Reference Obradović, Burt and Masten2009; Portilla, Ballard, Adler, Boyce, & Obradović, Reference Portilla, Ballard, Adler, Boyce and Obradović2014).

The strength of our findings should be considered within the context of several limitations. The present study assessed relationships at one time point during the course of the school year; however, it is likely that there is considerable change in the quantity and quality of children's interactions with their teachers and peers during the school year, particularly as they become more familiar and comfortable within the school environment. Peer acceptance is only one indicator of a larger set of early relational systems that are relevant to children's development (Bukowski & Hoza, Reference Bukowski, Hoza, Berndt and Ladd1989). Although not assessed in the current study, children's friendship is a related construct that has been shown to predict adjustment among kindergarten children above and beyond the effects of peer acceptance (Ladd, Reference Ladd1990; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, Reference Ladd, Kochenderfer and Coleman1997). Future research should explore the relative contributions of acceptance, friendship, and other protective aspects of children's peer relationships in attenuating the association between harsh parenting and ODD. Our average participation rate across classrooms was 67%, which falls within the recommended rate of 60%–70% participation (Cillessen & Marks, Reference Cillessen, Marks, illeseen, Schwartz and Mayeux2011). Although other research has suggested reliable peer nominations can be obtained with lower participation rates (e.g., ~40%; Marks, Babcock, Cillessen, & Crick, Reference Marks, Babcok, Cillessen and Crick2013), we acknowledge the importance of future research to replicate these findings, particularly in samples with more complete participation to ensure full representation across the range of parenting, peer and teacher relationship quality, and ODD symptoms.

In addition, ODD symptomatology is complex and multiply determined. Beyond the contributions of harsh parenting and children's peer relationships, there are a number of factors not assessed in the current study that may influence the pathways to ODD, including other dimensions of the parent–child relationship and home environment, biological and genetic variables, cognitive functioning, and neighborhood attributes (Burke, Loeber, & Birmaher, Reference Burke, Loeber and Birmaher2002). Further, there may be alternative models that explain the nature of relations between parenting, school relationships, and children's adjustment. For example, it has been suggested that children's peer relationships may influence parenting quality through the exposure of parents to other caregivers’ child-rearing strategies and discipline styles (Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, Reference Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge and Lapp2002). Although these relations cannot be examined within the temporal design of the current study, they are worthy of examination in future research. Given differences in the meaning and implications of harsh parenting across ethnic groups (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, Reference Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit and Zelli2000), follow-up research is also warranted to examine the potential for relations in the present study to be moderated by ethnicity. Although we observed significant bivariate correlations between ethnic minority status and parenting and peer acceptance in our sample, there were no significant three-way interactions between parenting, peer acceptance (or teacher–child closeness), and ethnicity (results not presented). Of note, we dichotomized our sample into ethnic minority and nonminority groups due to the unbalanced (and often small) distribution of children across varied ethnic minority groups. We do not imply homogeneity across ethnic minority groups with use of this approach and encourage more nuanced analyses of racial and ethnic differences in future studies. Finally, the present study did not use a diagnostic measure of ODD, children were not recruited from a clinical setting, and those with higher levels of ODD may have been less likely to be permitted by parents to participate. Thus, results may not generalize to children with more severe symptomatology.Footnote 2 However, it should be recognized that the present study's assessment of ODD symptoms along a continuum offered the advantage of retaining important variability within a diverse community sample.

Children exposed to harsh, restrictive parenting are at greater risk for ODD symptoms, though our findings show that relationships in proximal peer and classroom environments can be protective. Treatment programs often focus on parent training, including efforts to improve parents’ behavior management, discipline, and parent–child interaction patterns (Loeber, Burke, & Pardini, Reference Loeber, Burke and Pardini2009). However, there is a significant proportion of families for whom parent training interventions are minimally effective (Reyno & McGrath, Reference Reyno and McGrath2006), encouraging the use of multisystem, multimodal interventions (Burke et al., Reference Burke, Loeber and Birmaher2002; Ollendick et al., Reference Ollendick, Greene, Austin, Fraire, Halldorsdottir, Allen and Cunningham2016). Results of the current study suggest that expanding the interpersonal components of ODD treatment beyond the family environment to promote the quality of peer and teacher relationships may represent an additional pathway through which to effectively intervene. School-based programs that promote positive peer relationships, acceptance, and offer opportunities for social skill acquisition within the classroom context (e.g., Fast Track; Bierman, Reference Bierman2002; Bierman et al., Reference Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Foster, Greenberg, Lochman and Pinderhughes2004) may be well suited to address ODD symptomatology. Moreover, teachers report one of the highest levels of daily stressors among all occupational groups in the United States (Gallup, 2014), in part due to insufficient resources for meeting the needs of students with behavior problems and those reared in challenging family environments (Greenberg, Brown, & Abenavoli, Reference Greenberg, Brown and Abenavoli2016). Teacher mentorship programs and empirically based teacher trainings that focus on managing difficult classroom environments and providing support for at-risk youth may not only benefit students but also improve teachers’ stress and well-being (Greenberg et al., Reference Greenberg, Brown and Abenavoli2016). Such programs during the early elementary school years may be optimally timed to interrupt the negative developmental processes that lead to long-term poor outcomes and more severe psychopathology when ODD symptoms are left untreated.

Financial support

This study was supported by grants awarded to W. Thomas Boyce from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH62320), the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology and Development, and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Footnotes

1. To remain consistent with the long history of ODD literature and previous terminology used to describe the Child-Rearing Practices Report, we retain the term harsh parenting in the current manuscript. However, it should be noted that items reflecting restrictive and controlling parenting practices were generally more frequently endorsed among parents in this sample than those reflecting harsher parenting and discipline strategies.

2. Using empirically derived cutoff scores for the HBQ (Luby et al., Reference Luby, Heffelfinger, Measelle, Ablow, Essex, Dierker and Kupfer2002), between 10% and 14% of children in the current sample were identified as having clinically significant ODD, a rate comparable to the general population.

References

Ablow, J., & Measelle, J. (2003). Manual for the Berkeley Puppet Interview: Symptomatology, social, and academic modules. Pittsburgh, PA: MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology and Development.Google Scholar
Adler, N., Bush, N. R., & Pantell, M. S. (2012). Rigor, vigor, and the study of health disparities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(Suppl. 2), 1715417159. doi:10.1073/pnas.1121399109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aebi, M., Plattner, B., Metzke, C. W., Bessler, C., & Steinhausen, H. C. (2013). Parent and self-reported dimensions of oppositionality in youth: Construct validity, concurrent validity, and the prediction of criminal outcomes in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 941949. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12039CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Alink, L. R., Mesman, J., Van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., … Koot, H. M. (2009). Maternal sensitivity moderates the relation between negative discipline and aggression in early childhood. Social Development, 18, 99120. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00478.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (1996). The relative diagnostic utility of child and parent reports of oppositional defiant behaviors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 253259. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1234-988X(199612)6:4<253::AID-MPR170>3.3.CO;2-O3.3.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 4388.Google ScholarPubMed
Berg, Y. H., Lansu, T. A., & Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Measuring social status and social behavior with peer and teacher nomination methods. Social Development, 24, 815832. doi:10.1111/sode.12120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierman, K. (2002). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 1935. doi:10.1023/A:1014274914287Google Scholar
Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Foster, E. M., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., … Pinderhughes, E. E. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 650661. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, J. J., Kim, E. S., & Lease, A. M. (2011). Exploring the incremental validity of nonverbal social aggression: The utility of peer nominations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57, 293318. doi:10.1353/mpq.2011.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J. H. (1965). The child-rearing practices report: A technique for evaluating parental socialization orientations. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Human Development.Google Scholar
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 11711197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06166.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C.-S., & Haynes, O. M. (2010). Social competence, externalizing, and internalizing behavioral adjustment from early childhood through early adolescence: Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 717735. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844850. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukowski, W. M., Cillessen, A., & Velasquez, A. (2012). Peer ratings. In Brett, T. D. L., Larsen, P., & Card, N. A. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 211228). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In Berndt, T. J. & Ladd, G. W. (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 1545). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., & Birmaher, B. (2002). Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, part II. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 12751293. doi:10.1097/00004583-200211000-00009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, J. D., Rowe, R., & Boylan, K. (2014). Functional outcomes of child and adolescent oppositional defiant disorder symptoms in young adult men. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 264272. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12150CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, N. R., Obradović, J., Adler, N., & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Kindergarten stressors and cumulative adrenocortical activation: The “first straws” of allostatic load? Development and Psychopathology, 23, 10891106. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, projections. Developmental Review, 13, 471502. doi:10.1006/drev.1993.1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2007). Multilevel perspectives on pathways to resilient functioning. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 627. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In illeseen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 2556). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Costello, E. J. (2007). Psychiatric predictors of adolescent and young adult drug use and abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, S1S3. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and children's externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, 12201237. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00468CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 565579. doi:10.1017/S0021963001007272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deković, M., Janssens, J. M., & Gerris, J. R. (1991). Factor structure and construct validity of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment, 3, 182. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2016). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior: Linking etiology, prevention, and treatment. In Cicchetti, D. (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology, risk, resilience, and intervention (Vol. 3, pp. 647678). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, H. L., & Angold, A. (2006). Common emotional and behavioral disorders in preschool children: Presentation, nosology, and epidemiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 313337. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01618.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., & Liew, J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, children's effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76, 10551071. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00897.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erath, S. A., El-Sheikh, M., Hinnant, J. B., & Cummings, E. M. (2011). Skin conductance level reactivity moderates the association between harsh parenting and growth in child externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 47, 693. doi:10.1037/a0021909CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T., Goldstein, L. H., Armstrong, J. M., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., & MacArthur Assessment Battery Working Group. (2002). The confluence of mental, physical, social, and academic difficulties in middle childhood: II. Developing the Macarthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 588603. doi:10.1097/00004583-200205000-00017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup. (2014). State of American Schools. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/178709/state-america-schools-report.aspxGoogle Scholar
Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development, 67, 22012216. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01852.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235284. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. T., Brown, J. L., & Abenavoli, R. M. (2016). Teacher stress and health effects on teachers, students, and schools. College Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center.Google Scholar
Gruenenfelder-Steiger, A. E., Harris, M. A., & Fend, H. A. (2016). Subjective and objective peer approval evaluations and self-esteem development: A test of reciprocal, prospective, and long-term effects. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagan, M. J., Roubinov, D. S., Adler, N. E., Boyce, W. T., & Bush, N. R. (2016). Socioeconomic adversity, negativity in the parent child-relationship, and physiological reactivity: An examination of pathways and interactive processes affecting young children's physical health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78, 9981007. doi:10.1097/PSY.0000000000000379CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17, 115136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00418.xGoogle Scholar
Harrison, L. J., Clarke, L., & Ungerer, J. A. (2007). Children's drawings provide a new perspective on teacher–child relationship quality and school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 5571. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinshaw, S. P., & Anderson, C. (1996). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In Mash, E. & Barkley, R. (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp. 113149). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, S. P., & Lee, S. S. (2003). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In Mash, E. & Barkley, R. (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp. 144198). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 322. doi:10.007/s10964-010-9579-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, C. J., Kim-Spoon, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2016). Linking executive function and peer problems from early childhood through middle adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 3142. doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0044-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18, 915945. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J. (2009). Two is better than one. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 2223. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01092.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiuru, N., Laursen, B., Aunola, K., Zhang, X., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Leskinen, E., … Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). Positive teacher affect and maternal support facilitate adjustment after the transition to first grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62, 158178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konold, T. R., Jamison, K. R., Stanton-Chapman, T. L., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2010). Relationships among informant based measures of social skills and student achievement: A longitudinal examination of differential effects by sex. Applied Developmental Science, 14, 1834. doi:10.1080/10888690903510307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T., & Kupfer, D. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 15661577. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.9.1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 10811100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02843.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.14.1.74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relation systems that contribute uniquely to children's school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 11811197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01993.xGoogle Scholar
Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children's social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 11681189. doi:10.2307/1130613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, G. W., Price, J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1990). Preschoolers’ behavioral orientations and patterns of peer contact: Predictive of social status? In Asher, S. R. & Coie, J. D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 90115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laursen, B., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2012). Handbook of developmental research methods. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lavigne, J. V., LeBailly, S. A., Hopkins, J., Gouze, K. R., & Binns, H. J. (2009). The prevalence of ADHD, ODD, depression, and anxiety in a community sample of 4-year-olds. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 315328. doi:10.1080/15374410902851382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125141. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3502_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leve, L. D., & Cicchetti, D. (2016). Longitudinal transactional models of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 621622. doi:10.1017/S0954579416000201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeber, R., Burke, J., & Pardini, D. A. (2009). Perspectives on oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathic features. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 133142. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02011.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luby, J. L., Heffelfinger, A., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Dierker, L., … Kupfer, D. J. (2002). Differential performance of the MacArthur HBQ and DISC-IV in identifying DSM-IV internalizing psychopathology in young children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 458466. doi:10.1097/00004583-200204000-00019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children's relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 8199. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00031-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, P. E. L., Babcok, B., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Crick, N. R. (2013). The effects of participation rate on the internal reliability of peer nomination measures. Social Development, 22, 609622. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00661.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2016). Resilience in development: Progress and transformation. In Cicchetti, D. (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 4. Risk, resilience, and intervention (3rd ed., pp. 271333). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74, 11451157. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller-Lewis, L. R., Sawyer, A. C., Searle, A. K., Mittinty, M. N., Sawyer, M. G., & Lynch, J. W. (2014). Student-teacher relationship trajectories and mental health problems in young children. BMC Psychology, 2, 27. doi:10.1186/s40359-014-0027-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, M. O., & Bratton, S. C. (2010). Preliminary investigation of an early mental health intervention for Head Start programs: Effects of child teacher relationship training on children's behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 10031017. doi:10.1002/pits.20520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nock, M. K., Kazdin, A. E., Hiripi, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Lifetime prevalence, correlates, and persistence of oppositional defiant disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 703713. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01733.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obradović, J., Burt, K. B., & Masten, A. S. (2009). Testing a dual cascade model linking competence and symptoms over 20 years from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 90102. doi:10.1080/15374410903401120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obradovic, J., Bush, N. R., Stamperdahl, J., Adler, N. E., & Boyce, W. T. (2010). Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behavior and school readiness. Child Development, 81, 270289. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01394.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ollendick, T. H., Greene, R. W., Austin, K. E., Fraire, M. G., Halldorsdottir, T., Allen, K. B., … Cunningham, N. R. (2016). Parent management training and collaborative and proactive solutions: A randomized control trial for oppositional youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45, 591604. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1004681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, J., & Hoza, B. (2003). Diagnostic utility of DSM-IV-TR symptoms in the prediction of DSM-IV-TR ADHD subtypes and ODD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 7, 1127. doi:10.1177/108705470300700102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S., & Lake, E. T. (2005). Multilevel modeling of a clustered continuous outcome: Nurses' work hours and burnout. Nursing Research, 54, 406413. doi:10.1097/00006199-200511000-00007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive family process (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In Reid, J., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 2544). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult–child relationship processes and early schooling. Early Education and Development, 8, 1126. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0801_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295312. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses: Influences of parents' socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380400. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Portilla, X. A., Ballard, P. J., Adler, N. E., Boyce, W. T., & Obradović, J. (2014). An integrative view of school functioning: Transactions between self-regulation, school engagement, and teacher–child relationship quality. Child Development, 85, 19151931. doi:10.1111/cdev.12259Google ScholarPubMed
Poulin, F., & Chan, A. (2010). Friendship stability and change in childhood and adolescence. Developmental Review, 30, 257272. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyno, S. M., & McGrath, P. J. (2006). Predictors of parent training efficacy for child externalizing behavior problems—A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 99111. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01544.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 16621671. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129134. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<129::AID-JCLP2270380120>3.0.CO;2-33.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of childhood physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 565578. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-6738-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493529. doi:10.3102/0034654311421793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubinov, D. S., Hagan, M. J., Boyce, W. T., Adler, N. E., & Bush, N. R. (2018). Family socioeconomic status, cortisol, and physical health in early childhood: The role of advantageous neighborhood characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine, 80, 492501. doi:10.1097/PSY.0000000000000585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 175222). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Runions, K. C., Vitaro, F., Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hall, M., & Boivin, M. (2014). Teacher–child relationship, parenting, and growth in likelihood and severity of physical aggression in the early school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60, 274–301.Google Scholar
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the stae of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentse, M., & Laird, R. D. (2010). Parent–child relationships and dyadic friendship experiences as predictors of behavior problems in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 873884. doi:10.1080/15374416.2010.517160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sentse, M., Lindenberg, S., Omvlee, A., Ormel, J., & Veenstra, R. (2010). Rejection and acceptance across contexts: Parents and peers as risks and buffers for early adolescent psychopathology. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 119130. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9351-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seung Lam, M., & Pollard, A. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding children as agents in the transition from home to kindergarten. Early Years, 26, 123141. doi:10.1080/09575140600759906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2010). The impact of parents, child care providers, teachers, and peers on early externalizing trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 555583. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., Winter, C. C., & Patterson, G. R. (2014). Coercive family process and early-onset conduct problems from age 2 to school entry. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4, Pt. 1), 917932. doi:10.1017/S0954579414000169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speltz, M. L., McClellan, J., DeKlyen, M., & Jones, K. (1999). Preschool boys with oppositional defiant disorder: Clinical presentation and diagnostic change. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 838845. doi:10.1097/00004583-199907000-00013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 10721091. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00898.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Lier, P. A., & Koot, H. M. (2010). Developmental cascades of peer relations and symptoms of externalizing and internalizing problems from kindergarten to fourth-grade elementary school. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 569582. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205211. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672260CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M.-T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49, 690705. doi:10.1037/a0027916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M. T., Selman, R. L., Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2010). A tobit regression analysis of the covariation between middle school students' perceived school climate and behavioral problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 274286. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00648.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 105124. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, K. M. (2016). “My teacher helps me”: Assessing teacher-child relationships from the child's perspective. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30, 2941. doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1105333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittinger, N. S., Langley, K., Fowler, T. A., Thomas, H. V., & Thapar, A. (2007). Clinical precursors of adolescent conduct disorder in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 179187. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000246066.00825.53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among study variables

Figure 1

Figure 1. The association between harsh parenting and spring oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms using the continuous measure of children's report of teacher–child closeness plotted at low (–1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of closeness.

Figure 2

Table 2. Linear regression models presenting unstandardized betas of children's ODD symptoms as a function of harsh parenting, peer acceptance, or teacher–child closeness (peer or teacher report), and their interaction

Figure 3

Figure 2. The association between harsh parenting and spring oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms using the continuous measure of peer nominations of acceptance plotted at low (–1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of peer acceptance.