the influence of maternal sensitivity, shyness and language ability on preschoolers' peer likability

183 Pages·2014·1.37 MB·English

THE INFLUENCE OF MATERNAL SENSITIVITY, SHYNESS AND
LANGUAGE ABILITY ON PRESCHOOLERS’ PEER LIKABILITY

CHEUNG HOI SHAN
(B.Soc.Sci. (Hons), NUS)

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2013
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me
in its entirety.

I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in
the thesis.

This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university
previously.

_________________________

Cheung Hoi Shan
[13 February 2014]

i
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to the following persons and organisations:
My supervisor A/P John Elliott, whose wisdom, warmth and care had kept me
going in the past few years. Thank you for being such a great mentor!
My thesis committee members, A/P Sim Tick Ngee, A/P Susan Rickard Liow and
Dr Tan Seok Hui, for providing invaluable advice and guidance. Special thanks
also go to Dr Tan, for generously sharing her lab space with me, and for inviting
me to her lab meetings.
Dr Iliana Magiati, for her valuable suggestions on how I could improve my thesis.
A/P Melvin Yap, for his insightful comments on my study, and A/P Mike Cheung
for his statistical training and advice.
Professor Zeynep Biringen, for her patient guidance in the use of the EA Scales,
and Ms Veronica Rivera for her help with the EA parallel coding.
Staff of the Singapore Children’s Society, Ms Sue Cheng, Ms Chan Qingrong and
Ms Rosie Lim, for help with the MBQS sort and for taking part in the EA coding
at the early stage of this study.
The Lee Foundation, the Singapore Children’s Society, the Tan Chin Tuan
Foundation, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Department of
Psychology, for providing the research funds which made this study possible in
the first place.
My fieldwork team mates, Cheng Yi Hoong, Chu Yiu Tak, Low Pei Yee and Ruth
Leong, for their help in data collection. Thanks for coming on board and sharing
your insights with me.
Ms Loo Bee Bee, Ms Loh Poh Yee, Ms Harlizah, Ms Norlela, Ms Janice Ow, Ms
Irene Ho, Mr Soloman Seow and Ms Irene Nai, for the administrative and
technical assistance.
The Principals, teachers, parents and children who took part in my study. Thank
you very much for supporting local research effort in this field!
My family, for their love and unwavering support.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. ii
Summary ............................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x
List of Illustrations ................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Theoretical Framework – Attachment Theory .......................................... 3
1.2.1 Ethological Research and Bowlby’s Contributions ........................ 3
1.2.2 The Sensitivity Hypothesis.............................................................. 5
1.2.3 Emotional Availability .................................................................... 9
1.2.4 Maternal Sensitivity and Children’s Social Development ............ 13
1.2.5 Attachment and Sensitivity – Cross-cultural Considerations ........ 17
1.3 Child Variables – Shyness and Language Skills ..................................... 22
1.3.1 Temperament in Child Development ............................................ 22
1.3.2 The Conditional Model and Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis
................................................................................................................ 25
1.3.3 Shyness and Children’s Social Development: The Role of Culture
and Gender ............................................................................................. 27
1.3.4 Language Ability and Children’s Social Development ................. 32
1.4 Associations Among the Predictors ......................................................... 34
1.4.1 Mediating Role of Language Ability ............................................ 36
1.5 Children’s Likability by Peers ................................................................. 38
iii
1.5.1 Conceptualisations and Measures of Children’s Likability Within
the Peer Group ........................................................................................ 39
1.5.2 Sociometric Nominations and Peer ratings – A Comparison ........ 42
1.5.3 Teacher’s Ratings on Peer Likability ............................................ 43
1.5.4 Ethical Issues and Participation Rates in Sociometric Measures .. 45
1.6 Contributions of the Present Study .......................................................... 47
1.7 Hypotheses............................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 51
2.1 Participants .............................................................................................. 51
2.2 Measures .................................................................................................. 52
2.2.1 Maternal sensitivity ....................................................................... 52
2.2.2 Child Shyness ................................................................................ 56
2.2.3 Children’s Language Ability ......................................................... 57
2.2.4 Peer Likability ............................................................................... 61
2.2.5 Non-verbal Ability ........................................................................ 62
2.3 Procedure ................................................................................................. 63
2.4 Planned Statistical Analyses .................................................................... 66
2.5 Pilot Study ............................................................................................... 67
2.5.1 Participants .................................................................................... 69
2.5.2 Measures ........................................................................................ 69
2.5.3 Procedure ....................................................................................... 70
2.5.4 Results and Discussion of the Pilot Study ..................................... 72

iv
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 75
3.1 Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................... 75
3.1.1 Screening for Missing Data, Outliers, and Multicollinearity ........ 75
3.1.2 Evaluation of Observation Sessions .............................................. 77
3.1.3 Internal Consistency ...................................................................... 77
3.1.4 Inter-observer Reliability .............................................................. 79
3.1.5 Cross-sex and Same-sex Peer Ratings .......................................... 81
3.1.6 The Influence of Participation Rate on Peer Ratings .................... 82
3.1.7 Screening for Covariates ............................................................... 84
3.2 Main Analyses ......................................................................................... 85
3.2.1 Bivariate Correlations ................................................................... 85
3.2.2 Hypotheses 1 and 2 - Predictors of Peer Likability ....................... 87
3.2.3 Hypothesis 3 – Gender as a Moderator ......................................... 92
3.2.4 Hypothesis 4 – Test of the Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis 93
3.2.5 Hypothesis 5 – Vocabulary Skills and Pragmatic Language
Difficulty as Mediators ........................................................................... 94
3.3 Miscellaneous Analysis ........................................................................... 98

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 101
4.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................ 101
4.2 Peer Likability – Gender and Cross-informant Differences .................. 102
4.3 Predictors of Peer Likability .................................................................. 103
4.4 Differential Susceptibility and the Mediating Effect of Language
Ability……………………………………………………………………...105
v
4.5 Culture-specificity of the Values of Child Shyness and Maternal
Sensitivity .................................................................................................... 107
4.6 Strengths and Limitations of the Study ................................................. 116
4.7 Practical Implications of the Research Findings ................................... 119
4.8 Directions for Future Research .............................................................. 120
4.9 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 123

References ........................................................................................................... 124
Appendix A
Descriptions of the Five Dimensions of the Emotional Availability (EA) Scales
............................................................................................................................. 152
Appendix B
Questionnaires Administered
Participants’ Background Data .................................................................... 155
Mother’s Evaluation of the Play Session ..................................................... 157
Children’s Behaviour Questionnaire ........................................................... 158
Language Background Questionnaire ......................................................... 160
Relationship between a caregiver and child ................................................ 162
Filmer’s Evaluation of the Play Session ...................................................... 167
Appendix C
Stimuli Used in Free Play Session and Peer Rating Procedure
C1: Toys used in the 30-minute free play session ....................................... 168
C2: Pictures for demonstrating the peer rating procedure ........................... 169
C3: Pictures for children’s familiarisation with the peer rating procedure . 170
C4: Faces used for the 3-point peer likability rating scale .......................... 171

vi
Summary
Background and Aims
Research has shown that having good relationships with peers is
advantageous to children’s well-being, making it relevant to examine the factors
which may predict children’s likability in the peer group. This study looked at
how maternal sensitivity, child shyness, children’s vocabulary and pragmatic
language skills may predict likability by peers in preschool. Past studies have
shown how these predictors were individually related to children’s quality of peer
relationships. This dissertation extends existing research by examining in a single
study the relative contributions made by these four variables in the prediction of
children’s likability by peers. Of particular interest is how maternal sensitivity and
child shyness may be linked to likability in the local context, with implications for
the cross-cultural relevance of these concepts in Singapore. The differential
susceptibility hypothesis, which posits that maternal sensitivity interacts with
child shyness in influencing children’s likability by peers, was also tested; along
with language skills as mediators in the associations between sensitivity and
shyness on the one hand, and likability by peers on the other.
Method
The sample included 164 mother-child dyads belonging to the four major
ethnic groups in Singapore (Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others). Children (72
boys, 92 girls) were between ages 52 and 79 months (M = 67.07, SD = 6.67).
Mother-child interactions in a free play session were coded using the Emotional
Availability (EA) Scales (fourth edition) as a measure of maternal sensitivity.
Mothers also completed measures on child shyness (Children’s Behaviour
Questionnaire) and pragmatic language difficulty (Children’s Communication
Checklist-2). Receptive and expressive vocabularies were tested using the
Expressive One-word Vocabulary Test-4 and the locally-developed Bilingual
vii
Language Assessment Battery respectively. In the third quarter of the school year,
the author visited the preschools to obtain likability ratings from classmates.
Results and Discussion
Gender differences were found in the association between the predictors
and likability by peers. Teachers and children also seemed to judge children’s
likability by peers on different bases. Shyness in boys was related to their being
more well-liked by female peers, implying that shyness has a positive connotation
within the opposite sex peer group in this culture. Contrary to expectation,
maternal sensitivity was related to boys’ being less well-liked by girls. Low
pragmatic language difficulty was associated with girls’ likability by male peers,
with it being the only significant predictor. Furthermore, better vocabulary skills
predicted more favourable teachers’ ratings of peer likability for boys; while low
shyness and pragmatic language difficulty predicted the same for girls. These
findings vindicated the use of a cross-informant methodology, in order to provide
a more complete picture of children’s relative standing within the peer group.
The differential susceptibility hypothesis was, however, not supported.
Vocabulary skills and pragmatic language difficulty mediated the associations
between maternal sensitivity, child shyness and peer likability as rated by teachers,
but only for girls. This suggests the importance of language ability in accounting
for variations in how well-liked children were by peers.
The results and details of the method raised questions as to the importance
of maternal sensitivity in Singapore families, and as to whether or not the EA
Scales validly measured it, since the results are not entirely consistent with those
from studies elsewhere. This dissertation, being the first local study conducted to
look at how maternal sensitivity (as understood in the western context) was
related to peer likability, has brought to light possible cultural variations in the
understanding of the concept of sensitivity. Local research is very much needed to
further understand how best sensitivity may be measured in Singapore.
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Bivariate correlations between sensitivity, shyness and peer
acceptance ......................................................................................................... 72
Table 2: EA Scales scores provided by a native and non-native coder … ....... 81
Table 3: Bivariate correlations of the variables as a function of different
participation rates ............................................................................................. 83
Table 4: Means and standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the
variables, differentiated by gender. .................................................................. 86
Table 5: Unique variances contributed by all the predictors towards boys’
likability by peers ............................................................................................. 89
Table 6: Unique variances contributed by all the predictors towards girls’
likability by peers ............................................................................................. 90
Table 7: Main and moderation effects for gender, maternal sensitivity and
shyness .............................................................................................................. 93
Table 8: Vocabulary and pragmatic language difficulty as mediators in the
relationship between maternal sensitivity and teachers’ ratings on peer
likability ............................................................................................................ 97
Table 9: ICCs for inter-observer reliability of the other five EA dimensions .. 99
Table 10: Means and standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between
the EA dimensions and the other variables .................................................... 100
Table 11: Sub-scales of the other five EA dimensions ................................... 154

ix