|
...psychopathologies. aims extend this research by shifting the focus of investigation from the content to the structure of family interactions. Structure refers to the relative flexibility versus rigidity (6) of the behavioral interaction of parent-child dyads. Until recently, structural analyses of family patterns were largely inaccessible because of the dearth of methodologies appropriate for such analyses (Granic & Hollenstein, 2003; Hinshaw, 2002; Richters, 1997; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975). The present study addresses this gap by resurrecting the concept of rigidity and by employing a new dynamic systems (DS) methodology (state space grids [SSGs]) to examine the relation of the development of psychopathology to the structure of parent-child interactions.
Theories and investigations of behavioral rigidity have a long and rich history spanning all the subdisciplines and zeitgeists of psychology over the past century. Prior to 1960, these operationalizations ranged from a focus on perseveration in perceptual-motor domains (Spearman, 1927) to a focus on more dispositional limitations of habit in the face of novelty (Cattell, 1935) and cognitive flexibility (Luchins & Luchins, 1959). Werner (1946) defined rigidity as the lack of response variability or the lack of adaptability of behavior. Werner further made the distinction that stability is not the same as rigidity but a "flexibility of response in order to preserve the functional equilibrium of the organism in the face of mutable situations" (Werner, 1940, p. 55). By the 1950s, however, the proliferation of terms, definitions, and approaches to the study of rigidity created little insight (Chown, 1959) and little empirical research on rigidity (Schultz & Searleman, 2002). What has persisted is a conceptualization of rigidity as a personality trait (e.g., DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002) or as a cognitive individual difference factor in tasks that require a shift from one practiced response to another (Harris, 1988; Luchins & Luchins, 1959). These approaches to rigidity have conspicuously lacked an emotional component and little attention has been paid to nonnormative samples.
In the clinical domain, researchers, practitioners, and theorists continue to observe that psychopathology represents "diminished flexibility and constrictions in the affective, cognitive, and behavioral correlates of adaptational patterns" (Overton & Horowitz, 1991, p. 3). However, this view of psychopathology as overlearned, automatized cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns that are insensitive to environmental change and that interfere with social functioning (Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995; Mahoney, 1991) has rarely been empirically demonstrated. One notable exception is the circumplex model of adaptive family functioning (Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 2000) that assesses the state of a family system along the dimensions of flexibility and cohesion. What is interesting about this approach is that rigidity is addressed as a function of two or more individuals, and not just a property of one individual. However, like personality measures, the methods used to test this theoretical model are static, summary measures that fail to tap the inherently temporal quality of rigidity and real-time change in behavior and in response to varying environmental demands. This study explores patterns of rigidity in realtime family interactions and the association of these patterns with the development of psychopathology in early childhood.
Three common core aspects of rigidity can be identified. The first aspect is a diminished behavioral repertoire wherein there are fewer states available to the parent-child system, regardless of the environmental demands. The second is a limited capacity to switch among behaviors in response to changes in the environment. The third aspect is the tendency to perseverate in any particular behavior. This study examined the relations between problem child behavior and the relative flexibility or rigidity of family interactions in early childhood. Our general hypothesis was that rigid parent-child interactions are related to, and predict growth in, childhood externalizing and internalizing behavior.
The Development of Rigid Behavior
At the individual level, evidence suggests that rigid response patterns are associated with a wide range of problem behaviors in childhood. Temperament has been conceptualized as the confluence of reactivity and regulation (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981) whereby emotional experiences that are well regulated "flexibly change in response to changing conditions, and rise and fall in a manner that permits a productive accommodation to changing situational demands" (Thompson, 1990, p. 373). In contrast, dysfunctional affect regulation is characterized by prolonged emotional responses and a lack of alternative reactions, possibly because of the lack of proper regulatory interactions with a caregiver (Rothbart, Ziaie, & O'Boyle, 1992; Schore, 2003; Weinberg & Tronick, 1998). This lack of regulatory flexibility, whether resulting from child temperament or unskilled caretaking, increases a child's vulnerability to environmental stressors and augments risk for negative outcomes (Rutter, 1995). Similarly, the hostile attribution bias expressed by aggressive children (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992) has been conceptualized as a rigid emotional appraisal of others' intentions in ambiguous situations. Anxious children have also been found to overinterpret ambiguous situations as threatening but to react with avoidant rather than aggressive solutions to threat (Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, & Ryan, 1996; Shortt, Barrett, Dadds, & Fox, 2001). Common to these disorders, regulatory dysfunctions and cognitive biases--regardless of the specific content of the affects, cognitions, or behaviors--is a structure of responding to environmental change that is rigid in terms of a diminished behavioral repertoire, an inability to adapt or respond effectively to changes in the environment, and a tendency to perseverate.
Beyond the individual, it is useful to understand the structure of experience and its contribution to development in a social context. From a systems perspective, developmental trajectories arise from multiple and reciprocally causal interactions (Cicchetti & Toth, 1998; Dumas & LaFreniere, 1995; Dumas, Lemay, & Dauwalder, 2001; Granic, 2000; Hinshaw, 2002; Minuchin, 1974; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975). A child's behavior prompts a response from the mother and this response then influences the child's behavior, and so on. Over time, these interactions constrain future behavior to more predictable patterns that at an extreme may translate into more specific problems for the child, such as depression or aggression. A classic example is the coercive cycle described by Patterson and colleagues (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). In this process, an aggressive child's coercive behavior is reinforced through repeated instances of nattering on the part of the parent, opposition from the child, and the eventual capitulation of the parent. Thus, the family system is a context wherein parents and children form patterns of interaction together, and these patterns can be identified as more or less rigid.
Family interactions related to the development of psychopathology show evidence of the three core aspects of rigidity. For example, internalizing behavior has been associated with a reduced range of (flattened) affective expression (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Field et al., 1985; Gelfand & Teti, 1990). All families experience some conflict, but the families of aggressive children engage in extended and escalating (i.e., perseverative) exchanges of coercive behavior (Patterson, 1982). It is the inability to flexibly exit those corrosive interactions that leads to psychopathology (Dumas et al., 2001; Gottman & Notarius, 2000). Thus, it is not only the content but the structure of parent-child behavior over time (i.e., rigidity) that can influence child adjustment.
Previous investigations have focused on the negative content of social interaction, but rigidity in structure may apply to interaction content that is positive as well as negative. Getting "stuck" in a dyadic state is what is problematic. That rigidity in mutual positive states is problematic may seem counterintuitive. However, parents in well-adjusted families will typically respond to extended periods of high positive arousal in children with a range of downregulatory responses, thus moving through a number of dyadic states rather than remaining perpetually positive. Flexibility in affective and behavioral states is also likely to better accommodate the variety of typical social tasks encountered by a family. Some tasks elicit both elation and frustration (e.g., game playing, homework), some are more directly confrontational and anger provoking (e.g., problem solving), and others are enjoyable and unconstrained (i.e., eating a snack). Thus, dyads that remain continuously in mutually positive states might not be adapting well to the shifting environmental demands of these tasks, and it is important for families to display, utilize, accommodate, and regulate a range of emotions evoked by these different tasks.
DS Methods
We have proposed...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
Mother- and father-child mutuality in Anglo and Indian British familie..., December 01, 2004
Systematic changes in families following prevention trials., December 01, 2004
The relative contribution of sibling deviance and peer deviance in the..., December 01, 2004
Adolescent friendship as a dynamic system: entropy and deviance in the..., December 01, 2004
Trouble ahead: predicting antisocial trajectories with dynamic systems..., December 01, 2004
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
