Developmental Psychology Journal - Literature review Example

Your Hollenstein et al. (2004) in their study “Rigidity in Parent-Child Interactionsand the Development of Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior in Early Childhood” propose that rigidity in parent-child interaction would be associated with psychopathologies of children in early childhood and this association would be independent of the content of interaction. Content of parent-child relationship holds prime importance when it comes to evaluating behavior problems in early childhood. It is established that rigid and over-authoritative interactions contribute to child psychopathologies. In this study, Hollenstein et al. (2004) took the research further by investigating the structure of interaction within family rather than content. Structure is defined as the relative flexibility versus rigidity among parent-child behavioral interaction. Several studies confirm that structural interaction analysis was not possible due to the lack of appropriate methodologies in past (Granic &Hollenstein, 2003; Hinshaw, 2002; Richters, 1997; Smeroff & Chandler, 1975).The study under discussion, however, compensates it by reviving the rigidity concept through employing new dynamic systems(DS) methodology(state space grids[SSGs]) in order to investigate the relationship of rigidity in parent-child interaction and development of internalizing and externalizing problems among children. In their research, Hollenstein et al. (2004) observed parents and 240 kindergarten kids for two consecutive hours who were engaged in different tasks expected to call forth a diverse range of affects. SSGs analysis of observational data confirms the hypothesis and reveals clear association of rigid parent-child interaction and child externalizing behavior, in addition to the growth in such problems with time. Rigid interactions are also associated with concurrent levels and high-level internalizing problems in children. Hollenstein et al. (2004) argue that investigation of the behavioral rigidity and its impact is not new in psychology. These operationalizations ranged from emphasis on perseveration in perceptual-motor domains (Spearman, 1927) to more dispositional limitation of habit for novelty (Cattell, 1935) and then cognitive flexibility (Luchins & Luchins, 1959).Researchers discuss the theoretical perspective of rigidity. Initially Werner (1946) referred lacking response variability or adaptability behavior as rigidity and argues that flexibility is entirely different from rigidity. After 1950s, numerous definitions and terms provided some insight into the concept of rigidity (Chown, 1959) including some empirical research on rigidity (Schultz & Searle-man, 2002). Either we consider conceptualizing rigidity as personality trait (DeYoung, Peterson & Higgins, 2002) or cognitive individual factor of difference (Harris, 1988; Luchins &Luchins, 1959) emotional aspects has always been lacking in these approaches in addition to little consideration for non-normative samples. Hollenstein et al. (2004) assert that in clinical domain, psychopathology is considered to be the diminished flexibility of emotional, cognitive and behavioral parallels of adaptation patterns (Overton & Horowitz, 1991, p.3). However, these approaches are insensitive to environmental change and impede social functioning (Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995; Mahoney, 1991) therefore, these are rarely demonstrated empirically. Circumplex model of adaptive family functioning (Minuchin, 1974; Oson, 2000) evaluate family system by flexibility and cohesion perspective. This approach considers rigidity as function of individuals rather than trait of single individual. However, similar to personality measures, it utilizes static and summary measures to examine that are unable to tap the quality of rigidity and changing behavior. The study under consideration explores the pattern of rigidity in real-time family interaction in addition to the association of such patterns with development of psychopathology during early childhood. Hollenstein et al. (2004) suggest three aspects of rigidity. First is diminished behavior repertoire where limited states are available irrespective of environmental demands. Second is a restricted ability to switch among behaviors as responses to changing environment. Third aspect is the tendency to reiterate the particular behavior. Hollenstein et al. (2004) research reveal that correlation with rigidity specifies reserved linear relationship with externalizing behavior in fall and spring kindergarten and first grade. Higher level of rigidity in relationship is also associated with child externalizing issues in categorical and growth clustering approaches as well. Parent-child rigidity scores in higher externalizing subgroups were higher than low externalizing subgroups in a constant and progressive manner. Individual growth patterns of externalizing behaviors revealed that rigidity was higher in two cases. Firstly, for those who remained high in externalizing during kindergarten and first grade and secondly, for children whose externalizing behavior increased with time. “Desistor” and “gower” were at more or less the same level of externalization in kindergarten. Amount of rigidity at the first point of interaction differentiated these clusters because at that specific point, children could not be separated on the basis of their externalizing scores. Analyzing these results increase the possibility early parent-child interaction and differences may help in predicting which child with moderate level of externalizing behavior is going to be more problematic in future. Hollenstein et al. (2004) reveal that comparatively inconsistent associations were revealed for child internalizing behavior issues. Correlation between rigidity and internalizing behavior is not linear as it may be associated to rigid interaction patterns in severe cases. This correlation between rigidity and incessant measures of internalizing issues were smaller and considerable at the end of kindergarten. Differences of rigidity among extreme groups who were high and low at internalizing subgroups were comparatively distinct. Moreover, association between growth clusters and rigidity was reserved for chronically higher group without anticipating growth in internalizing problems. According to Hollenstein et al. (2004) research results also revealed that relationship of parent-child interaction and development of psychopathologies holds up with controlling particular behavioral content during interaction. Mean duration of positive or negative interaction, parent or child startup did not undermine the correlation between rigidity and externalizing or internalizing behaviors. The mean inferences in dyadic states belong to the degree to which families are inclined to get trapped in each state. Structural consideration of parent-child interaction provides distinctive explanation of interpersonal behavior in two ways (real-time and between context variability) which is beyond content. In real-time dynamics of interaction, specific way of emotional training may take numerous forms within a dyad. Hollenstein et al. (2004) assert that dyad has three attractors rather than one. Moreover, the extent to which they reiterate in each attractor and their tendency to transform into other states is attributed to entire coercive process. Dyads may have common level of rigidity that reveals restricted dynamics of their emotional co-regulation while differing in number and type of attractors. Therefore, structure subsumes content as high rigidity and highlights a co-regulation with few but strong attractors while low rigidity suggests comparatively diverse group of weak attractors. Moreover, structure reveals the capability to adapt to the changing environment and its requirements. It is evident that real-time and contextual rigidity are associated with the development of behavior problems in early childhood. Researchers in this study consider it critical to investigate structure-content relationship directly in future research. They assert that interrelation between content-structure arrangement and scales may open new doors in the development of psychopathology. There are also certain limitations of the study. According to Hollenstein et al. (2004) association are measured between SSG and rigidity issues in early childhood but sample size was not sufficient enough. Individual variables of rigidity construct were neither strongly associated with each other nor with the outcomes. Researchers find it compelling to refine these rigidity measures further. Two hour observational study provided quite enough space on real-time relationship dynamics in changing situations. However, Hollenstein et al. (2004) intend that task may have not been arranged in systematic manner that could have optimized measurement of rigidity. A challenging methodological manipulation of context may reveal the way in which flexibility or rigidity is sustained within and across contexts. Another limitation is associated with sample characteristics. The sample was at risk but not clinically referred for internalizing or externalizing behavior. The significant but weak predictions of this study could have been made more reliable if a clinically referred sample was used. Work Cited Hollenstein, Tom, Isabela Granic, Mike Stoolmiller, and James Snyder. “Rigidity in Parent-Child Interactions and the Development of Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior in Early Childhood.”Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology32.6 (2004):595-607. Springer Science Business Media, Inc.Web.13 October 2010. Read More