تداوم پرخاشگری فیزیکی از اوایل دوران کودکی: بررسی بزهکاری مادر و متخلف، سلامت روان و تفاوت های فرهنگی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38623||2014||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 42, Issue 5, September–October 2014, Pages 408–420
Abstract Purpose To examine the persistence of physical aggression in preschoolers and associated correlates (i.e., socio-demographic, socioeconomic, criminality, parenting practices, maternal mental health). Methods One-year follow-ups are completed with 240 mothers and their preschool children (boys and girls) from the Vancouver Longitudinal Study on the Psychosocial Development of Children. A series of structural equation models are examined. Results Maternal psychological symptoms, juvenile delinquency, and adult offending are associated with higher levels of physical aggression in their offspring. Children of non-Caucasian mothers and those born outside of North are less physically aggressive. Cultural differences in the correlates of physical aggression were identified. Conclusions Maternal past delinquency, current adult offending, and mental health are important factors in the development of children’s physical aggression. The findings suggest that there are multiple pathways leading to chronic physical aggression, which may be culturally-based. Cultural differences should be taken into account when developing programs and intervening with families of children with behavioral problems.
Introduction Criminology is progressively searching earlier in the life course to explain the development of antisocial and criminal behavior. Developmental criminologists propose that early life events and circumstances can have cumulative consequences on an individual’s behavioral development (e.g., Loeber et al., 2008 and Moffitt, 1993). Similarly, Cullen (2011) suggests that criminology should focus on the developmental periods prior to adolescence, stressing that infants emerge from the womb with individual differences and such differences are carried on to the next developmental stages. The focus on these very early individual differences, especially those associated with later violent behavior, is emphasized by longitudinal studies (e.g., Caspi et al., 2002). Genetic or biological studies may provide information on the magnitude of the influence of antisocial and violent behavior (for reviews, Glenn and Raine, 2014, Moffitt, 2005 and Rhee and Waldman, 2002), but do not necessarily explain the underlying process by which the risk for violence develops over time. Recent research shows that known risk factors for violence are predictive of childhood aggression as early as 6 and 12 months old (Hay et al., 2011 and Hay et al., 2014), while criminogenic risk factors are associated with patterns of physical aggression in preschoolers as young as 36 months old (Lussier, Corrado, et al., 2011, Tzoumakis et al., 2012 and Tzoumakis et al., 2014). Moreover, recent theoretical advances suggest that theories of crime need to incorporate the development of temperament and associated behavioral problems in infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, adolescence, and across adulthood (DeLisi and Vaughn, 2014 and Walters, 2014). The period from infancy to early childhood is therefore important for theoretical development, and empirical evidence continues to indicate that antisocial behavior originates during this time (e.g., Farrington, 2005 and Moffitt, 2003). The early childhood/infancy period is also vitally important for policy reasons. For instance, a recent meta-analysis shows that early intervention programs (i.e., family/parent training) are effective not only in decreasing antisocial behavior in childhood, but also have positive long term effects on delinquency and offending in adolescence and adulthood (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009). The effectiveness of early intervention is therefore critical, particularly since a substantial amount of research indicates the financial costs of delinquency and crime are extremely high (see Cohen, 1998 and Cohen et al., 2010). Further understanding of the processes occurring with children and their parents during infancy and early childhood, particularly from a criminological perspective, can help to improve prevention, intervention, and approaches to studying the origins of antisocial behavior. Moreover, as many communities become increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, understanding these processes among different cultural, ethnic, and immigrant groups is also important. The current study explores the development of physical aggression during this early childhood period, and considers a neglected area in current research along these lines, cultural differences. Developmental psychology and childhood physical aggression Research in developmental psychology emphasizes the importance of the early childhood period, particularly regarding the development of physical aggression. Aggression during childhood is normative, and most children exhibit some form of physical aggression, with peaks in the frequency of aggression at approximately one and half, and, two to three and a half years of age (Hay, 2005 and Tremblay et al., 1999). After this early childhood period however, aggression tends to decline dramatically (e.g., Cummings et al., 1989, Goodenough, 1931 and Hartup, 1974). While many studies have examined developmental trajectories of violence aggression in adolescence and adulthood (for a review, Jennings & Reingle, 2012), fewer studies have focused specifically on the development of physical aggression before school entry (e.g., Côté et al., 2006, Côté et al., 2007, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004, Piquero et al., 2012 and Tremblay et al., 2004). Findings from these studies show that: 1) approximately one third to half of preschool children belong to a very low (approaching zero) trajectory of physical aggression; 2) preschool children exhibiting the highest levels of physical aggression in a cohort were the smallest trajectory identified (approximately 15%); 3) those belonging to the high physical aggression trajectories are more likely to show antisocial behavior and violence into adolescence and adulthood; and, 4) a number of risk factors are associated with belonging to the high physical aggression trajectories in early childhood, including: male gender, low socioeconomic status, maternal past antisocial behavior, maternal young age at birth of child, maternal low education, prenatal smoking, presence of young siblings, coercive parenting. Critically, virtually none of these early childhood studies examine an ethnically diverse sample, or the impact of ethnic or cultural differences in the development of physical aggression. Findings from trajectory studies therefore reaffirm the importance of understanding aggression during the early childhood period, while informing us about the risk factors associated with the long-term development of aggression. However, one limitation is that they do not necessarily capture heterogeneity of patterns of physical aggression in the short-term, or explain how short-term physical aggression is influenced, particularly during the critical period before school entry. For example, the question of how patterns of behavioral development manifest in the short-term may yield very different observations than broader patterns over a five or ten year period. Moreover, it is unclear whether correlates associated with short-term change are the same or different from those associated with the predicted long-term trajectories of physical aggression in children. The period before children begin school is critical as it provides an important window of opportunity for primary and secondary intervention because this is when socialization processes are taking place where children learn alternatives to aggression and other maladaptive behavior (e.g., Kochanska, 1993, Kopp, 1982, Maccoby, 1980 and Tremblay, 2003). Therefore, examining the more proximal factors and life circumstances of families dealing with children with aggression and behavioral problems is also informative for program development, and for clinicians and others intervening with these families. A greater level of specificity, or targeted intervention, may be more beneficial in this context, especially for different cultural groups. Motherhood and the transmission of antisocial behavior The socialization process in the preschool years falls to the parents, and mostly to mothers, as they are typically the primary caregivers. Studies in psychology often consider characteristics of mothers, such as mental health, that contribute to the development of aggression and other behavioral problems in their children (e.g., Cummings and Davies, 1994, Jaffee et al., 2006 and Shaw et al., 2001). Criminologists on the other hand, traditionally focus on the role of the father in the context of the intergenerational transmission of antisocial and criminal behavior (for reviews, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986 and van de Rakt et al., 2008). Although females are far less likely to participate in crime than males (e.g., Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996), the impact of maternal participation in delinquency and offending should not be underestimated. For instance, studies that have considered the role of both mothers and fathers in the development of children’s antisocial behavior find considerable continuity in antisocial behavior from mothers to their children (Smith and Farrington, 2004 and Thornberry et al., 2009). Moreover, females with a history of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency are at risk for experiencing a number of negative life circumstances in adulthood, including: low socioeconomic status, substance abuse, mental health problems, abusive interpersonal relationships (e.g., Lanctôt et al., 2007, Moffitt et al., 2001, Odgers et al., 2008 and Zoccolillo et al., 2005). In other words, when these women become mothers, these research findings tend to suggest that they may find themselves in ‘high-risk’ situations that subsequently make it more difficult to provide ideal supportive and nurturing caregiving environments. Sampson and Laub argue that socialization experiences and life transitions (e.g., marriage, employment) in adulthood can change the course of criminal behavior over the life span (e.g., Laub and Sampson, 2003 and Sampson and Laub, 1993). Moreover, research on desistance from crime suggests that becoming a parent can contribute to reducing antisocial and criminal behavior for females (e.g., Graham and Bowling, 1995 and Kreager et al., 2010). However, studies examining the adult outcomes of females with a history of antisocial behavior also suggest that these women are more likely to continue participating in antisocial behavior in adulthood (e.g., Lanctôt and Le Blanc, 2002 and Moffitt et al., 2001). Moreover, some qualitative accounts show that while many women attribute the birth of their child and motherhood as positive events that play an important role in their desistance from delinquency and crime, for others it is a source of stress that compounds their parental difficulties (e.g., Giordano, 2010 and Michalsen, 2011). Hence, whether motherhood is a positive or negative experience may be contingent on a number of individual and life circumstances, but it may pose a particular challenge for women involved in antisocial and criminal behavior. Motherhood in a New Cultural Context In an era of increased globalization, longitudinal studies and life-course criminology have neglected to account for the impact of immigration and the influence of new cultural contexts on offending and the transition to parenthood. On the one hand, research in the field of nursing has scrutinized the process of women attaining a maternal role identity (i.e., acquiring a new self-definition as a mother) for several decades (e.g. Koniak‐Griffin, 1993 and Rubin, 1967). Importantly, this field of research highlights that this process can be difficult for some women, and in particular for certain populations such as cultural minorities and adolescent mothers. On the other hand, all women do not experience motherhood the same way, and this is especially true for different cultural groups and immigrant mothers who are highly influenced by their cultural of origin (Koniak‐Griffin, Logsdon, Hines‐Martin, & Turner, 2006). Cultural displacement has an important yet minimally understood effect on motherhood because it is potentially challenging for mothers to raise children to function effectively in two different cultures (Tummala-Narra, 2004). In other words, accounting for cultural differences and immigration in the study of the relationship between motherhood and behavioral development in children is especially salient in multicultural nations. The importance of understanding experiences of immigration lies in the impact it has on women’s physical and mental health. For example, research examining the health of immigrants has identified the ‘healthy immigrant effect’, that indicates immigrants typically report low rates of physical and mental health issues which eventually tend to convergence with those of native-born levels (e.g., Ali, 2002 and McDonald and Kennedy, 2004). At the same time, there is some evidence suggesting that this healthy immigrant effect may not necessarily extend to pregnancy and motherhood experiences (e.g., Bollini et al., 2009 and Sword et al., 2006). Moreover, immigrant mothers are more likely to report being single, living in poverty, to have limited social support networks, and to experience depression after childbirth (Mechakra-Tahiri et al., 2007, Small et al., 2003, Sword et al., 2006 and Williams and Carmichael, 1985). Taken together, these research findings suggest that some immigrant women are faced with multiple challenges when becoming mothers, which may be somewhat unique compared to those of non-immigrant mothers, and that have an important impact on motherhood experiences and parenting. The current study The main aim of the current study is to examine the persistence of physical aggression in early childhood, since: a) this period is when physical aggression begins to decline and children are learning alternatives to aggression; b) this is an opportune period to provide effective intervention programming; c) there are frequently several long term adverse and cumulative risk factors for serious antisocial/criminal trajectories, and attendant costs. Therefore, the current study focuses on children’s short-term physical aggression during the preschool period when they are learning to inhibit their aggressive behavior. The main research question involves the identification of which correlates (i.e., socio-demographic, socioeconomic, criminality, parenting practices, maternal mental health) predict early childhood physical aggression. The role of the mother is emphasized in the current study since mothers have been somewhat neglected in criminology, and because they are typically the primary caregivers, and sometimes are the sole caregivers of their children. Mothers with a history of antisocial behavior tend to have more negative outcomes as adults, potentially finding themselves in at-risk situations when they become mothers, which may consequently influence their children’s behavior. Therefore, the current study hypothesizes that mothers involved in antisocial behavior and offending are more likely to have aggressive children. Importantly, the current study also takes into account the role of potential cultural differences within families, particularly considering those mothers born in another country, which is a neglected aspect of prior longitudinal studies on the development and transmission of antisocial behavior and aggression. This study also hypothesizes that there may be cultural differences in the correlates predicting children’s physical aggression. The overall objective is therefore to examine the persistence of preschool children’s physical aggression in the short-term, and explore associated correlates at this critical point in child development.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Risk factors associated with the persistence of physical aggression in early childhood The measurement model was identified for children’s physical aggression (PA) as shown in Fig. 1 (CFI = .97; NNFI = .94; RMSEA = .07). Aggression in early childhood was quite stable as indicated by the standardized path coefficient of .73 between the latent constructs of physical aggression at Wave 1 and Wave 2. The factor loadings were relatively high (.57 to .78) for all of the indicators of PA, except for fighting at Wave 1 (.46), which was also the least frequent physically aggressive behavior at this age. Each individual risk factor was included in a latent correlation model (Fig. 2, Model 1). The results of this series of analyses are presented in Table 2. Regarding the child characteristics examined, Caucasian children were more likely to be physically aggressive at Wave 1 (β = -.17; p < .05), and this relationship approaches significance at Wave 2 (β = -.14; p < .10). A gender effect appeared as the children aged; boys were more likely to be physically aggressive at Wave 2 (β = .18; p < .05). The presence of siblings was significant at both waves, but appeared to be more important at Wave 2 (β = .30; p < .001), explaining 9% of the variance. Of the maternal characteristics examined, ethnicity and place of birth were significant at both waves, with Caucasian mothers who were born in North America (NA) more likely to have aggressive children. Maternal place of birth was one of the strongest correlates of children’s PA (β = -.38; p < .001), explaining 15% of the variance at Wave 1 and 10% at Wave 2. Table 2. Latent associations between children’s physical aggression and child, mother, and family risk factors Regression paths Model fit Physical aggression at Wave 1 Physical aggression at Wave 2 CFI NNFI RMSEA Child characteristics Gender (male) .12 (.01) .18 (.03)* .97 .95 .06 (.02-.09) Age at Wave 1 .09 (.01) -.01 (.00) .96 .94 .06 (.03-.09) Ethnicity (non-Caucasian) -.17 (.03)* -.14 (.02)+ .93 .87 .09 (.07-.12) Sample type .03 (.00) .02 (.00) .95 .92 .07 (.05-.10) Presence of siblings .19 (.04)* .30 (.09)*** .97 .95 .06 (.03-.09) Maternal characteristics Age at birth of child .01 (.00) .04 (.00) .97 .95 .06 (.02-.09) Ethnicity (non-Caucasian) -.26 (.07)*** -.25 (.06)*** .92 .87 .10 (.07-.12) Place of birth (outside North America) -.38 (.15)*** -.31 (.10)*** .94 .90 .08 (.06-.11) Education (≤ high school) .06 (.00) .04 (.00) .97 .94 .06 (.03-.09) Family social adversity Family income -.05 (.00) -.03 (.00) .95 .92 .07 (.04-.10) Social assistance (ever) .21 (.04)** .14 (.02)+ .97 .94 .06 (.03-.09) Social status (Hollingshead score) -.04 (.00) -.06 (.00) .97 .95 .06 (.02-.09) Single parent family .18 (.03)* .16 (.02)* .96 .92 .07 (.04-.10) Crime indicators Variety of maternal juvenile delinquency .24 (.06)** .21 (.04)** .95 .91 .08 (.05-.11) Onset of maternal offending1 -.24 (.06)** -.17 (.03)* .94 .94 .08 (.05-.11) Offending at Wave 1 .17 (.03)* .15 (.02)* .96 .93 .07 (.04-.10) Maternal arrest history .04 (.00) .00 (.00) .96 .94 .06 (.03-.09) Partners/fathers’ arrest history .16 (.03)* .20 (.04)** .96 .93 .07 (.04-.10) Parenting practices Positive parenting scale -.19 (.04)* -.20 (.04)* .97 .95 .06 (.02-.09) Negative parenting scale .20 (.04)* .21 (.04)* .94 .90 .08 (.05-.11) Maternal psychological symptoms (BSI) Obsessive compulsive .21 (.05)** .20 (.04)** .95 .91 .08 (.05-.11) Depression .13 (.02)+ .12 (.01)+ .96 .93 .07 (.04-.10) Anxiety .19 (.04)* .15 (.02)* .92 .96 .07 (.04-.10) Hostility .38 (.14)*** .23 (.06)** .95 .92 .07 (.05-.10) Global Severity Index .25 (.06)** .20 (.04)** .94 .89 .09 (.06-.11) Note: All of the factors were tested in separate models (see Fig. 1, Model 1). The standardized regression path is reported for each of the risk factor and the added explained variance is presented in parentheses. 90% confidence intervals for RMSEA are in parentheses. + p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 1 Age at Wave 1 interview was used for those with no age of onset. Table options Family social adversity was also examined, and single parent families as well as a history of receiving social assistance were statistically significant risk factors of children’s PA. Moreover, all of the criminality indicators were significantly associated with children’s PA except for maternal arrest history, which is not surprising since few mothers reported ever having been arrested or convicted for a crime (7.9%). Mothers with a history of juvenile delinquency, those with an earlier onset of offending and those who reported offending in the year prior to Wave 1 were also significantly associated with children’s PA. The arrest history of the partner/father was also a significant risk factor of PA at both Waves 1 and 2. Models were also completed for maternal parenting practices and psychological symptoms at Wave 1. Positive parenting was found to be negatively associated with children’s PA at both waves, while negative parenting was found to be positively associated. Psychological symptoms were positively associated with children’s PA. All of the dimensions were significant, except for Depression, which approached significance. Maternal Hostility, (i.e., annoyance, irritability, urges to break things, frequent arguments, uncontrollable outbursts of temper) was the strongest predictor of the mental health dimensions of Wave 1 physical aggression (β = .38; p < .001), explaining 15% of the variance. Analyses with all of the dimensions of psychological symptoms were also conducted but using the cut-offs for ‘positive’ of clinical cases (not presented in Table 2 due to space limitations). The only dimension that was statistically significant was for clinical levels of Hostility, which was associated with children’s PA at Wave 1 (β = .19; p < .05). Models were also completed using maternal report of psychiatric disorder (i.e., ever diagnosed, currently undergoing treatment), and none were significantly associated with children’s PA. All of the analyses presented in Table 2 were also completed as structural models, accounting for the relationship between PA at Wave 1 and Wave 2 (Fig. 2, Model 2). The results remained the same for Wave 1, but not for Wave 2. More specifically, the path coefficients were identical between all of the risk factors and children’s PA at Wave 1, but all of the paths between the risk factors and Wave 2 PA lose their significance.13 This finding suggests that the risk factors are not predicting the unique variance of PA at Wave 2, but rather that they predict the shared variance of PA at these two time points. Taking into account the follow-up between Wave 1 and Wave 2 is approximately one year, as well as the overall stability in PA between the two waves, it is not surprising that the risk factors do not have a unique contribution to PA at the specific waves, but rather account for the shared variance of PA. Cultural differences in risk factors of physical aggression In order to examine cultural differences, models were also conducted separately for mothers born in N.A. (n = 141) and those born outside of N.A. (n = 100). First, the measurement models for children’s PA were identified for the two groups. The measurement model identified for the mothers born in North America is almost identical to the one for the whole sample (Fig. 1), although the standardized path coefficient between PA at Wave 1 and Wave 2 is slightly higher at .82. The measurement model for the mothers born outside of NA shows that there is less stability in PA for these children as the standardized path coefficient between PA at Wave 1 and Wave 2 is lower at .47. Patterns of association for the child characteristics examined, presented in Table 3,14 were similar across the two groups and were also in line with findings for the total sample. However, the sample type at Wave 2 approached significance, and the relationship differed for both groups. Specifically, children who belong to the clinical/at-risk sample tended to be more physically aggressive for those whose mothers were born in NA, while the opposite was true for those whose mothers were born outside NA. Maternal age at the birth of her child was significantly associated with Wave 2 PA for those mothers not born in NA, and the relationship is positive. The association between single parent families and children’s PA was significant only for NA born mothers (β = 27; p < .05). The crime indicators were not significant for either group (although examining the value of the association, β = 23, suggests it is approaching significance for the Wave I for the mothers born outside of NA). This is likely due to the smaller sample sizes once the groups were separated, and the low variability for these indicators. Overall, mothers born outside of NA reported almost no delinquency (11 % reported one or more offenses in the past year; Mean variety of juvenile delinquency = 0.7), while mothers born in NA tended to report greater participation in delinquency (26% reported one or more offenses in the past year; Mean variety of juvenile delinquency = 2.4). Table 3. Latent associations between child’s physical aggression and risk factors by mothers’ birth place Mothers born in N.A. (n = 141) Mothers born outside of N.A. (n = 100) PA Wave 1 PA Wave 2 PA Wave 1 PA Wave 2 Child characteristics Gender (male) .18 (.03)+ .20 (.04)* .17 (.03) .29 (.09)* Age at Wave 1 .16 (.03) .09 (.01) .12 (.02) -.04 (.00) Sample type .12 (.01) .17 (.03)+ -.13 (.02) -.19 (.04)+ Siblings .22 (.05)* .34 (.12)*** .17 (.03)+ .32 (.10)** Maternal characteristics Age at birth of child -.02 (.00) .01 (.01) .16 (.03) .26 (.07)* Education (≤ high school) .06 (.00) -.03 (.00) -.09 (.01) .14 (.02) Family social adversity Family income -.07 (.00) -.16 (.02) -.11 (.01) .06 (.00) Social assistance (ever) .18 (.03)+ .09 (.01) .11 (.01) .15 (.02) Social status (Hollingshead) -.09 (.01) -.14 (.02) -.00 (.00) .06 (.00) Single parent family .27 (.07)* .19 (.04)+ -.12 (.01) -.13 (.02) Criminality Variety of maternal delinquency .09 (.01) .07 (.00) .12 (.02) .07 (.01) Onset of maternal offending1 -.12 (.01) -.06 (.00) -.10 (.01) .01 (.00) Offending at Wave 1 .13 (.02) .04 (.00) .16 (.03) .23 (.05) Maternal arrest history -.05 (.00) -.11 (.01) .06 (.02) .15 (.00) Partners/fathers' arrest history .11 (.01) .16 (.03) .06 (.00) .09 (.01) Parenting practices Positive parenting scale -.06 (.00) -.20 (.04)* -.41 (.17)*** -.19 (.04)+ Negative parenting scale .23 (.05)* .29 (.08)** .31 (.10)** .16 (.03) Maternal psychological symptoms (BSI) Obsessive compulsive .26 (.07)** .22 (.05)** .17 (.03)+ .16 (.03) Depression .06 (.00) .11 (.01) .37 (.14)** .21 (.04)+ Anxiety .22 (.05)* .13 (.02) .19 (.04)+ .17 (.03) Hostility .29 (.09)*** .22 (.05)** .47 (.22)*** .20 (.04)+ Global Severity Index .27 (.07)** .21 (.05)* .30 (.09)** .23 (.05) 1Age at Wave 1 interview was used for those with no age of onset. Note: All of the factors were tested in separate models (see Fig. 1, Model 1). The standardized regression path is reported for each risk factor and the added explained variance is presented in parenthesis. Model fit indices are not shown in order to present the data as parsimoniously as possible. They are in line with those presented in Table 2, although due to the smaller sample size some of the indices are lower in these analyses. Robust significance tests are reported because of small sample size. + p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Table options Several differences between mothers born in and outside of NA emerged for parenting practices and psychological symptoms. For NA born mothers, a lack of positive parenting was associated with children’s PA at Wave 2 (β = -.20; p < .05) but not at Wave 1, while the association between children’s PA at Wave 1 and positive parenting for mothers born outside NA was quite high (β = -.41; p < .001), explaining 17% of the variance. The presence of negative parenting was associated with children’s PA at both Waves 1 and 2 for mothers born in NA, but only at Wave 1 for those mothers born outside of NA. Differences between the two groups were also found regarding psychological symptoms. Notably, for mothers born outside NA, not only was Hostility (β = .47; p < .001) strongly associated with children’s PA at Wave 1, but symptoms of Depression (β = .37; p < .01) were also statistically significant, although Depression was not significant for the total sample. Hostility was also significant for mothers born in NA, and the association was with children’s PA at both Waves 1 and 2. Obsessive compulsive symptoms were significantly associated with children’s PA for NA born mothers only. As with the full sample, analyses were also completed using indicators reflecting ‘positive’ cases of the psychological dimensions, which suggests clinical levels of disorders (not presented in Table 3 due to space constraints). Results showed that for mothers born in NA, clinical levels of anxiety (β = .22; p < .05) and obsessive compulsive (β = .22; p < .05) symptoms were associated with children’s PA at Wave 1, and obsessive compulsive approached significant with children’s PA at Wave 2 (β = .18; p < .10). Ever having been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder also approached significance with children’s PA at Wave 1 for the NA born moms (β = .20; p < .10). On the other hand, clinical levels of psychological symptoms were not statistically significant for the mothers born outside of NA, although hostility approached significance with children’s PA at Wave 1 (β = .23; p < .10). None of the self-report psychiatric history indicators were significant for those born outside of NA.