Direct and Indirect Relations Between Parenting Daily Hassles and Prosocial Behaviors:
The Role of Parenting Practices
Zehra Gülseven1, Gustavo Carlo1, Asiye Kumru2, Bilge Yağmurlu3, Melike Sayıl4
1
2
Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri
Department of Psychology, Özyeğin University, 3Department of Psychology, Koç University
4
Department of Psychology, Hacettepe University
Contact: Zehra Gülseven via [email protected]
Introduction
There is renewed interest in examining the relations between child rearing practices and
prosocial behavior (i.e., actions intended to benefit others) in early childhood (Knafo & Plomin,
2006). Developmental scholars have noted that parental child rearing behaviors seem to predict
children’s level of prosociality (Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007; Eisenberg & Valiente,
2002). Other scholars (e.g., family stress theorists) have noted that parenting daily hassles are a
source of daily life stress that can cause strains and difficulties in effective parenting (Belsky,
1984), which can both directly and indirectly affect children's outcomes. Although stress has
been linked to prosocial behaviors (e.g., McGinley et al., 2010), studies on the relations between
daily hassles and children’s prosocial behaviors are lacking.
Daily hassles are characterized as distressful, disturbing, and irritating demands in daily
life events (Crnic & Greenberg, 1990). Most parents frequently deal with cleaning up their
children's messes, calming down arguments between siblings, and several other daily stressful
events. Every single daily event may not be perceived a hassle, but the accumulative impact of
daily hassles may have a negative influence on parent-child relationships (Crnic & Greenberg,
1990). Although scholars suggest that the psychological burdens of many stressful experiences
can lead to lower levels of prosocial behaviors, research suggests these expected links may
depend upon the chronicity, intensity, and form of prosocial behavior. In one prior study,
economic strain was indirectly, negatively associated to youth prosocial behaviors via parentchild connectedness (Carlo et al., 2011). In another study, culture-related stress was positively
linked to some prosocial behaviors, and negatively related to the forms (McGinley et al., 2010).
Moreover, there is no research examining the relations between parental stress and children’s
prosocial behavior in non-Western cultures. Because parental stress and prosocial behaviors
might differ across cultures, research is needed to test the generalizability of family stress models
in non-Western cultures. The present study was designed to examine the relations between
parents’ daily hassles and young children’s prosocial behaviors, and the mediator role of parents’
child rearing practices in a Turkish sample.
Hypotheses
Two different models were examined: (a) three wave longitudinal model which included
parenting daily hassles at the age of 4, parenting variables at the age of 6, and children’s
prosocial behavior at the age of 7; and (b) two wave longitudinal model which included
parenting daily hassles and parenting variables at the age of 4, and children’s prosocial behavior
at the age of 6. The following specific hypotheses were examined.
1. Parenting daily hassles at age 4 will be negatively linked with parental warmth and
inductive reasoning and positively linked with physical punishment at age 4 and 6.
2. Parenting daily hassles at age 4 will be directly and negatively associated with
children’s prosocial behavior at age 6 and 7. Parenting daily hassles also will be indirectly and
negatively linked to children’s prosocial behaviors through parental warmth, inductive reasoning
and physical punishment.
3. Physical punishment at age 6 will be negatively linked with children’s prosocial
behavior at age 7. Physical punishment at age 4 will also be negatively linked with children’s
prosocial behavior at age 6.
4. Parental warmth at age 6 will be positively associated with children’s prosocial
behavior at age 7. Parental warmth at age 4 will also be positively associated with children’s
prosocial behavior at age 6.
5. Inductive reasoning at age 6 will positively predict children’s prosocial behaviors at
age 7. Inductive reasoning at age 4 will also positively predict children’s prosocial behaviors at
age 6.
6. Additionally, mediational effect of parenting dimensions (at age 6) on the relation
between parenting daily hassles (at age 4) and children’s prosocial behavior (at age 7) will be
expected. Furthermore, parenting dimensions (at age 4) will mediate the relation between
parenting daily hassles (at age 4) and children’s prosocial behavior (at age 6). Parenting daily
hassles will be positively linked with physical punishment, which, in turn, will predict lower
levels of prosocial behaviors. Parenting daily hassles will also be negatively associated with both
parental warmth and induction, which, in turn, will positively predict children’s prosocial
behaviors. To address this issue, the relations among the main variables was assessed to
determine whether the data met criteria to test for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Methods
Participants were 159 middle class Turkish children in the fourth wave (54.7% boys, and
45.3% girls).
Parenting daily hassles were assessed by using Parenting Daily Hassles Scale (Crnic &
Greenberg, 1990) at Time 1. Frequency (Cronbach's alpha = .82) and Intensity (Cronbach's alpha
= .87).
Child-Rearing Questionnaire (Paterson & Sanson, 1999) was used to measure parenting
styles at Time 1 and 3. For Time 1: Inductive Reasoning (Cronbach's alpha =.82), Physical
Punishment (Cronbach's alpha= .72), and Warmth ( Cronbach's alpha= .77). For Time 4:
Inductive Reasoning (Cronbach's alpha was .82), Physical Punishment (Cronbach's alpha was
.75), and Warmth (Cronbach's alpha was .77).
Children’s prosocial behaviors were assessed by using Measurement of Prosocial Behavior
Parent Ratings (Iannotti, 1985) at Time 3 and 4. Cronbach’s alphas were .92 for Time 3 and .91
for Time 4.
Results
Descriptive statistics among main variables are shown in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Correlations, Mean and SD for Three Wave Longitudinal Model
Variable Name
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1. Gender
2. Mother’s education
3. Daily Hassles age 4
4. Physical Punishment age 6
5. Warmth age 6
6. Inductive Reasoning age 6
13.81
2.17
1.52
4.49
4.42
3.46
.43
.41
.34
.45
.01
.01
-.03
-.12
-.06
.02
-.13
.03
.03
.23**
-.14
-.12
-.36**
-.24**
.62**
6
7
7. Prosocial Behavior age 7
*p <.05, **p <.01,
5.24
.84
.06
-.01
-.20*
-.21**
.39**
.31**
Table 2: Correlations, Mean and SD for Two Wave Longitudinal Model
Variable Name
1. Gender
2. Mother’s education
3. Daily Hassles age 4
4. Physical Punishment age 4
5. Warmth age 4
6. Inductive Reasoning age 4
7. Prosocial Behavior age 6
*p <.05, **p <.01,
Mean SD
1
2
3
13.81
2.17
1.48
4.60
4.49
4.93
.01
.01
-.02
-.01
-.09
.03
.02
-.21**
.10
.13*
-.04
.31**
-.16** -.23**
-.15* -.23** .52**
-.11
-.17* .29**
3.46
.43
.37
.29
.45
.94
4
5
6
7
.26**
For the three wave longitudinal model regression analyses are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Multiple Regression Analyses for the Three Wave Longitudinal Model
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
-.20* (-.15*)
Prosocial Behavior
Age 7
Warmth Age 6
-.14 (n.s.)
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
-.12 (n.s.)
.40** (.36***)
-.20* (-.17*)
Inductive Reasoning Age 6
Prosocial Behavior
Age 7
.31*** (.29***)
-.20* (-.17*)
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
.23**
Prosocial Behavior
Age 7
Physical Punishment Age 6
-.21** (-.17*)
*=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001
Note: Values in parenthesis are the standardized beta coefficients for these paths after addition of
parenting behaviors (warmth, inductive reasoning and physical punishment). Mothers’ education
was entered as a control variable in all analysis.
Parenting daily hassles was not significantly linked to parental warmth and inductive
reasoning. Therefore, regression analysis did not meet the mediation criteria for warmth and
inductive reasoning. For testing warmth, when warmth was entered into the model in the second
step, the standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily hassles and children’s
prosocial behavior dropped from -.20 to -.15, R2 change = .13, F change (1, 151) = 23.49, p<
.001, (Multiple R2=.17). For testing inductive reasoning, when inductive reasoning was entered
into model in second step, the standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily
hassles and children’s prosocial behavior dropped from -.20 to -.17, R2 change = .08, F change
(1, 151) = 14.05, p< .001, (Multiple R2=.12). Additionally, physical punishment did not meet the
mediation criteria, because when physical punishment added into the model in second step, both
the relation between parenting daily hassles and prosocial behavior, and the relation between
physical punishment and prosocial behavior were remained significant. However, this relation
met the criteria for indirect relations since both the relation between parenting daily hassles and
prosocial behavior, and the relation between physical punishment and prosocial behavior were
remained significant. For testing physical punishment, when physical punishment was entered
into model in second step, the standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily
hassles and children’s prosocial behavior dropped from -.20 to -.17, R2 change = .03, F change
(1, 151) = 4.57, p< .01, (Multiple R2=.07). These analyses revealed that there was both direct and
indirect relation between parenting daily hassles and children’s prosocial behavior through
physical punishment.
For the two wave longitudinal model, regression analyses are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Multiple Regression Analyses for the Two Wave Longitudinal Model
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
-.16**
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
-.15*
Parenting Daily Hassles
Age 4
.31***
-.11 (n.s.) (-.06 (n.s.))
Warmth Age 4
-.11 (n.s.) (-.07 (n.s.))
Inductive Reasoning Age 4
-.11 (n.s.) (-.06 (n.s.))
Physical Punishment Age 4
Prosocial Behavior
Age 6
.29*** (.28***)
Prosocial Behavior
Age 6
.27*** (.26**)
Prosocial Behavior
Age 6
-.18* (-.16 (n.s.))
*=p<.05, **=p<.01, ***=p<.001
Note: Values in parenthesis are the standardized beta coefficients for these paths after addition of
parenting behaviors (warmth, inductive reasoning and physical punishment). Mothers’ education
was entered as a control variable in all analysis.
Parenting daily hassles was not a significant predictor of children’s prosocial behavior
two years later. Thus, mediation was not possible for any of the parenting behavior in the second
model. For testing warmth, when warmth was entered into the equation in the second step, the
standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily hassles and children’s prosocial
behavior dropped from -.11 to -.06, R2 change = .08, F change (1, 168) = 13.95, p< .01,
(Multiple R2=.09). For testing inductive reasoning, after inductive reasoning was added into the
model, the standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily hassles and children’s
prosocial behavior dropped from -.11 to -.07, R2 change = .07, F change (1, 168) = 11.85, p< .01,
(Multiple R2=.08). For testing physical punishment, when physical punishment was added into
the model in the second step, the standardized regression coefficient between parenting daily
hassles and children’s prosocial behavior dropped from -.11 to -.06, R2 change = .02, F change
(1, 168) = 3.87, p> .05, (Multiple R2=.04). Furthermore, the standardized regression coefficient
between physical punishment and children’s prosocial behavior dropped to nonsignificance from
-.18 to -.16. These findings indicated that there was an indirect link between parenting daily
hassles and children’s prosocial behavior through parental warmth and inductive reasoning, but
not physical punishment.
Conclusions
Overall, the findings lend partial support to family stress models of children’s
development, and extend our understanding of children’s prosocial development in non-Western
cultures. There was partial support for the expected direct and indirect relations between
parenting daily hassles and children’s prosocial behaviors and the role of parenting practices.
Parents who reported relatively high levels of daily hassles were more likely to report the use of
physical punishment, and less likely to report parental warmth and inductive reasoning. The
findings are consistent with prior research that parental stress may negatively linked to positive
parenting and positively linked to negative parenting practices.
As expected, warmth and inductive reasoning found to be positively linked to children’s
prosocial behaviors. These findings are consistent with the notion that warm parents are
responsive and teach their children to be sensitive to other children’s needs, and that the use of
inductive reasoning helps children consider the needs of others. Parenting daily hassles were
directly and indirectly related to children’s prosocial behaviors. Perhaps some types of prosocial
behaviors (e.g. cooperation, comforting, and sharing) are relatively sophisticated forms of
prosocial behaviors that require some parental guidance and self-regulation skills.
As expected, physical punishment was negatively associated with prosocial behavior.
Highly stressed parents may have difficulties regulating their emotions and behaviors, which
may result in more use of physical punishment. Physical punishment, in turn, mitigates
children’s prosocial behaviors because it is associated with emotion and behavioral
dysregulation, lower empathy and sympathy, and more aggression (Carlo, 2006). Importantly,
the present findings extends prior theory and research that the links between parenting daily
hassles and children’s prosocial behaviors can be understood via different types of child rearing
to a non-Western, predominantly Muslim society.