1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«[W]e set out to test the transactional relationships between maternal and paternal parenting and CDB [children’s disruptive behaviour] across the transition from kindergarten to grade 2.» (p. 517)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«First, how are maternal and paternal PPs [parenting practices] associated with CDB over time? Second, do certain dimensions of parenting predict later CDB and vice versa?» (p. 517)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The full study sample consisted of 1095 children from 250 kindergarten classes across 40 schools of a large school board in the suburbs of Montreal (Canada). […] Of these, a subsample was composed of only those families (n = 644) where mother and father participated during at least two times of measurement.» (p. 516)

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«Our study provides longitudinal empirical evidence that parenting becomes more rigid over time for the five- to eight-year-old population. What is more, this is as much the case for negative as for positive practices and equally true for mothers and fathers. […] In this sample, associations between CDB and parental parenting reached significance in three domains: inconsistency, hostile parenting, and affective rejection. Transactional effects were observed between mothers and children for three of the five parenting domains at kindergarten entry, while no such effect emerged for fathers. […] In line with the coercion theory […], our results provide evidence of a reciprocal parent-child influence at school entry. As children grow older, however, their CDB seems to become more challenging, eliciting more hostile parenting and affective rejection from both parents. As the CDB becomes more difficult to manage and exasperating, and increase in hostile parental attributions dampens the reflex of positive PPs [parenting practices]. […] Our results [confirms with others that] significant relations to be more frequent in the mother–child dyad than in the father–child dyad.» (p. 527-528)