Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Infant Behavior and Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/inbede

Full length article

Mothers’ competence profiles and their relation to language and

T
socioemotional development in Chilean children at 12 and 30
months
Chamarrita Farkas*, Carolina Álvarez, María del Pilar Cuellar, Elena Avello,
Diana Marcela Gómez, Pablo Pereira
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The study of early parental competences is relevant because such competences are related to
Mothers’ profiles children’s development; however, most studies have considered competences using a variable-
Person-centered approach centered approach in which each parental competence is examined in isolation. This paper ap-
Early infancy proaches these competences using a person-centered approach, generating profiles that combine
Children’s language
different competences in Chilean mothers assessed when their children were aged 12 months and
Socioemotional skills
again at 30 months. The aim of this study was to generate and compare these profiles and to
analyze the associations of these profiles with children’s language and socioemotional skills.
Mother-child interactions in the contexts of storytelling and free play were videotaped at two
different times. Ninety mother-child dyads were assessed using the Adult Sensitivity Scale
(E.S.A.), the Evaluation of the Mentalization of Significant Caregivers, the Checklist of
Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO), Bayley’s language scale and the Functional
Emotional Assessment Scale (FEAS). Profiles of mothers’ behaviors were identified through
person-centered within-group analyses of six aspects: sensitivity, mentalization, affection, re-
sponsiveness, encouragement, and teaching. Cluster analyses yielded three similar profiles for
mothers at both ages: highly competent, average competent, and poorly competent. The mothers’
profiles were related to maternal age, socioeconomic status (SES) and educational level, and the
mothers improved their profiles at the 30-month assessment. The mothers’ profiles were related
to children’s language and socioemotional outcomes at both ages. These results and their ap-
plicability to promotion and intervention programs are discussed.

1. Introduction

The study of early parental competences such as cognitive stimulation, scaffolding, sensitivity, mentalization, control, warmth,
and responsiveness is of great relevance because a large body of research has shown that these competences are related to children’s
development. Mothers’ warm, responsive, and stimulating engagement with their children is linked to many components of children’s
school readiness, including greater emotional competence, fewer behavioral problems, larger vocabulary, and better cognitive
achievement (e.g., Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Landry, Miller-Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 2002). Early parental competences

⁎
Corresponding author at: Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago,
Chile.
E-mail address: chfarkas@uc.cl (C. Farkas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101443
Received 22 July 2019; Received in revised form 27 February 2020; Accepted 19 March 2020
0163-6383/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

have also been related to children’s executive functioning (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010; Landry et al., 2002), readiness to
succeed in school and academic achievement (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2009; Cowan & Cowan, 2009), later social problem-solving
(Raikes & Thompson, 2008) and problem-solving skills (Landry et al., 2002), and less aggressive responses (Dodge, 2009; Raikes &
Thompson, 2008). These positive features of parenting are often described as sensitive parenting that is responsive to the child’s
needs, including both the child’s socioemotional needs and his or her need for cognitive stimulation (e.g., Bornstein & Tamis-
LeMonda, 1989). Cross-cultural support for the developmental importance of these characteristics of positive parenting has slowly
accrued.
However, most studies have considered a variable-centered approach to studying parenting in which each parental competence is
examined in isolation. Although the relevance of individual competences to children’s outcomes has been demonstrated, the dis-
advantage of this approach is that the effects of individual parental competences may differ depending on parenting styles compiled
from multiple dimensions (Kerr, Stattin, & Ozdemir, 2012). In recent years, some efforts have been made to generate profiles that
combine different competences in an attempt to develop a person-centered approach. The advantage of such an approach is that it
allows the data to determine the optimal number of solutions (profiles), thereby improving the likelihood of a participant’s fitting one
of the profiles. This approach also eliminates possible bias toward a specified number of solutions and is advantageous due to its
applicability to multidimensional models (Weaver & Kim, 2008); it is the approach taken in the current study.
Within the person-centered approach, Baumrind (1967) described three clusters of parental control with preschool children, the
authoritative, authoritarian and permissive styles, based on combined patterns of encouragement, warmth, control, and demanding
behaviors. Later, Maccoby and Martin (1983) included an additional parenting profile, negligent (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). A large
number of studies have provide evidence for a relationship between these profiles and children’s outcomes as reflected in their
emotional stability, coping skills, academic achievement, depressive symptoms, self-control, self-esteem, and aggression (Chen, Liu, &
Li, 2000; Low, Snyder, & Shortt, 2012; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Mandara, 2003).
More recently, four parenting profiles have been described: tiger parenting, supportive parenting, easy-going parenting, and harsh
parenting. These profiles emerged from the consideration of eight different parenting dimensions (positive and negative); parental
warmth, parental hostility, parental monitoring, democratic parenting, psychological control, punitive parenting, inductive reasoning
and shaming (Kim, Wang, Orozco-Lapray, Shen, & Murtuza, 2013). These profiles are related to developmental outcomes and ad-
justment as well as to depressive symptoms (Kim et al., 2013). However, these profiles have been studied only during adolescence,
and it is possible that other profiles might be more relevant during early infancy.
Concerning the early infancy period and following a person-centered approach, Cook, Roggman, and D’zatko (2012)) identified
three parental styles or profiles among low-income mothers: developmental parenting, unsupportive parenting, and negative par-
enting. Brady-Smith et al. (2013) examined the parental styles of European American, African American, and Latin American mothers
and identified four profiles: supportive, directive, detached, and harsh. Dyer, Owen, and Caughy (2014) found similar profiles among
African American and Latin American mothers; they labeled the profiles as child-oriented, directive, harsh-intrusive, and withdrawn.

1.1. Mothers’ profiles: a person-centered approach

This study aims to explore six different mothers’ competences, some of which are characterized as affective (sensitivity, affection,
responsiveness) and some of which are considered more cognitive (mentalization, encouragement, teaching) and to determine
whether they can be organized into profiles. These competences were chosen because the extended literature has shown that these
adults’ aspects have significant impacts on small children’s development. The six dimensions addressed in the profile analyses in this
study are reviewed below.

1.2. Affective dimensions

1.2.1. Sensitivity
Sensitivity is understood as the maternal ability to adequately perceive and interpret the signs and communications made by the
child and provide a proper response (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Sensitivity is defined as behavior that is consistent
and positive toward children and appropriately responsive to children’s cues (Doesum, Hosman, Riksen-Walraven, & Hoefnagles,
2007). The literature has shown that sensitive behavior exhibited by mothers toward their children during the first year of the child’s
life is the principal precursor of children’s secure attachment later in life and of their positive psychological and cognitive devel-
opment (Belsky & Fearon, 2008; Crittenden, 2006; Kersten-Alvarez, Hosman, Riksen-Walraven, Van Doesum, & Hoefnagels, 2011;
Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley, & Tuckey, 2001). In addition, maternal sensitivity improves self-regulation (Razza, Martin, & Brooks-
Gunn, 2012), promotes positive socioemotional development (Page, Wilhelm, Gamble, & Card, 2010) and facilitates the growth of the
social, emotional and cognitive competences of the infant (Smith, Landry, & Swank, 2006). In contrast, a lack of sensitivity is related
to higher frequency of crying and negative emotions (Boyd, Zayas, & McKee, 2006).

1.2.2. Affection
Affection is the first of four behavioral domains (affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching) proposed by (Roggman,
Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, and Christiansen (2013). Their proposal holds that these domains include specific types of devel-
opmentally supportive behaviors by relevant adults in children’s lives that early childhood practitioners are most likely to observe.
These domains predict children’s outcomes, and within these domains, multiple specific behaviors are likely to be strong predictors of
positive developmental outcomes for children (Roggman et al., 2013). Affection, or “warmth,” involves the physical or verbal

2
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

expression of affection, positive emotions, positive evaluation, and positive regard. These interactions are related to lower expression
of antisocial behavior, secure attachment, and better cognitive ability (Caspi et al., 2004).

1.2.3. Responsiveness
The responsiveness domain proposed by Roggman et al. (2013) includes reacting sensitively and positively to children’s cues,
behaviors, and expressions of physical and emotional needs. Although responsiveness has been considered synonymous with sen-
sitivity, in Roggman’s proposal it is a specific domain that includes concrete behaviors such as paying attention to what the child is
doing, reacting by making comments and showing interest, and being flexible about changes in the child’s activities or interests
(Roggman, Boyce, & Cook, 2009). Higher levels of responsiveness predict greater social development and a marked enhancement of
executive functions such as working memory, impulse control, and set-shifting (Bernier et al., 2010).

1.3. Cognitive dimensions

1.3.1. Mentalization
Mentalization refers to parents’ ability to understand the child as an individual with a mind (Meins, Fernyhough, Russel, & Clark-
Carter, 1998) and to transmit this understanding to the child through language. In the study of mentalization, some authors have
focused on the appropriateness of maternal mental comments (e.g., Meins, Fernyhough, Arnott, Leekam, & Rosnay, 2013). A second
approach, which is followed by the authors of this study, focuses on the type of comments made and describes specific mental
references observed in maternal speech. These references include comments related to emotions, cognitions and desires, and re-
ferences that facilitate the child’s social understanding of the environment, such as causal language, factual language and language
linked to the child's life (e.g., Ruffman, Slade, & Crowe, 2002; Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006). This competence has been linked to
children’s emotional and social understanding (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006, 2008), the development of secure attachment
(Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Moran, & Higgit, 1991; Meins et al., 2012; Slade, Grienenberger, Bernbach, Levy, & Locker, 2005) and theory
of mind (Ensink & Mayes, 2010; Ensink, Normandin, Plamondon, Berthelot, & Fonagy, 2016; Meins, Fernyhough et al., 2013), and
prevention of children’s behavioral difficulties (Meins, Centifanti, Fernyhough, & Fishburn, 2013).

1.3.2. Encouragement
The encouragement domain proposed by Roggman et al. (2013) includes adult support of children’s efforts, exploration, in-
dependence, play, choices, creativity, and initiative that is offered in a way that is not very restrictive or intrusive. Interactions that
promote encouragement are related to autonomy, emotional regulation, and language development (Landry et al., 2002).

1.3.3. Teaching
Teaching is the last domain proposed by Roggman et al. (2013). Teaching includes cognitive stimulation, explanations, con-
versation, joint attention, and shared play (Roggman et al., 2013). Interactions characterized by higher levels of teaching are linked
to cognitive, socioemotional, and language skills, particularly emergent literacy and conversational skills (Tamis-LeMonda, Kuchirko,
& Song, 2014).

1.4. Current study

The current study, which utilizes a person-oriented approach to identify profiles considering the six competences mentioned
above, has three primary aims. First, we examine these competences through cluster analyses that determine whether specific profiles
of mothers in interaction with their children can be identified at two time points, when the children are 12 months and 30 months of
age. We expected that these competences would be organized into profiles that could be characterized as more affective (higher
scores for the competences sensitivity, affection, and responsiveness) or more cognitive (higher scores for the competences menta-
lization, encouragement, and teaching).
Second, we consider how the identified profiles differ with respect to dyad characteristics (e.g., mothers’ age, SES and educational
level, children’s gender and age) that are standard predictors of individual differences in parenting qualities. We expected that older
mothers with higher SES and higher educational levels would exhibit more cognitive profiles. We also wished to explore the potential
relationship between mothers’ profiles and children’s gender. The third aim was to analyze the relationship between the identified
profiles and children’s language and socioemotional skills measured at two different time points during development as a means of
determining whether these profiles are relevant to children’s development. Children’s language was considered because early ac-
quisition of language promotes cognitive and social development and emotional regulation (Cole, Armstrong, & Pemberton, 2010)
and favors behavioral inhibition, development of the theory of mind and the later acquisition of executive functions (Bell & Calkins,
2010). Socioemotional skills also enable children to adapt to the demands and expectations of the social environment (Greenspan &
Shanker, 2004), to effectively achieve goals (Campos, Mumme, Kermoain, & Campos, 1994) and to participate in socially appropriate
interactions with peers, siblings, parents, and other people (Raver & Zigler, 1997).
This study explored the dimensions considered in previous studies as well as new dimensions. In addition, it considered the use of
different instruments for assessment and different contexts of interaction (storytelling, free play). This approach differs from the
proposals described above, which generally focus on information obtained through one instrument or in one context. In addition,
none of the previous studies considered Latino, specifically Chilean, samples. This study is also distinguished by its consideration of
multiple dimensions of observed behaviors considered as affective and cognitive aspects and by the inclusion of assessments made at

3
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

two different times, when the children were 12 and 30 months of age; thus, it has the advantage of providing information about
whether and how these profiles change over time.
The advantage of using a person-centered approach lies in the possibility of identifying naturally occurring combinations of
mothers’ competences that generate different mothers’ profiles. Examination of this relationship should increase our understanding of
potential ways in which to promote or prevent children’s outcomes. In recent years, the Chilean government has encouraged a focus
on the first years of children’s lives because of the potential impact of early attention on children’s development, especially for
children in high-risk contexts (see, for example, the Program “Chile Crece Contigo” [Chile grows with you]1). Thus, study of the
influence of mothers’ competences on children’s outcomes is relevant to the design of public policies.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample comprised 90 mother-child dyads. The average age of the mothers at the beginning of the study was 27.8 years; they
were of different SES, and 81.1 % had completed secondary education. The children’s average age was 12.00 months; 56.7 % were
boys, and all attended public or private nurseries (see Table 1). The children and their mothers were contacted at 24 educational
centers located in 17 municipalities in the city of Santiago; the 17 municipalities represented 56.3 % of all Santiago municipalities.
The criteria for inclusion of children in the study were that the children attended a nursery, were between the ages of 10 and 15
months, and did not have any severe developmental disorders; these criteria were measured using a sociodemographic questionnaire.
A total of 18.9 % of the cases were unavailable for the second assessment, generally due to a change in nursery or moving to a
different city, resulting in sampling of 73 cases at T2. Attrition analyses showed no differences between the mothers who remained in
the study and those who withdrew from it, considering the six competences assessed.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Sensitivity
Sensitivity was assessed using the Escala de Sensibilidad del Adulto (E.S.A.) (Adult Sensitivity Scale; Santelices et al., 2012). This
scale assesses an adult’s sensitivity in interaction with children between 6 and 36 months of age. The mother and child are filmed for
5 min during free play interaction. The only instruction given is “do what you always do.” The dyad receives a set of developmentally
appropriate toys. The coding system considers a rubric with 19 indicators that are related to different aspects of the sensitivity
response. Each indicator is scored between 1 and 3, and a higher score indicates higher sensitivity. The E.S.A. gives scores for 3 scales:
responsiveness (for example, item 2, “During the interaction, prioritizes following the interests of the child rather than her/his own
interests”), playful encouragement (for example, item 5, “Allows the alternation of turns with the child”) and warm attunement (for
example, item 4, “Allows communicative reciprocity during the interaction”). The total score for sensitivity, which is calculated by
averaging all the items, ranges between 1 and 3. The instrument reliability was .93 based on Cronbach’s alpha. The coders reached a
reliability of .62 (Cohen’s Kappa) for 35 videos chosen randomly (Santelices et al., 2012), indicating substantial agreement. For this
study, only the total score for sensitivity was considered. The instrument’s reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .87 for this sample.

2.2.2. Mentalization
Mentalization was assessed using the Evaluation of the Mentalization of Significant Caregivers (Farkas, Strasser, Badilla, &
Santelices, 2017). This assessment elicits references to mental states in the adult’s speech in a structured situation. The adult is asked
to tell the child two stories that address an issue or conflict appropriate for the child’s age. The instrument has a parents’ version and a
teachers’ version as well as two forms that consider the child’s age (0–23 months, 24–48 months). Puppets are used by caregivers to
hold the child’s attention in the first form, and pictures are used in the second form. The stories in each form are appropriate to the
child’s age. For each story, the adult is given a vignette with which to begin a story. For example, the vignette for Story 1 (Form 1,
parents) is “Tomás/Antonia (depending on the gender of the child) is playing with the house keys, and he/she approaches the door. He/she
tries to insert the keys again and again, but he/she cannot!…”. The initial instruction to the adult is, “I invite you to tell two stories to _________
(name of the child). The particularity of these stories is that they are unfinished, and you must complete them using ideas that you create. You
can take the time that you deem necessary to finish the story”. The entire event is filmed and then transcribed and coded. The coding
method considers the presence and frequency of ten mental reference categories (desires, cognitions, emotions, psychological at-
tributes, states of consciousness, physiological states, causal talk, factual talk, links with the child’s life and physical expressions) for
each of the two stories. Finally, a mentalization category is assigned based on the number of reference categories detected and the
types of categories according to the child’s age, and the adult’s speech is categorized as representing low, adequate, or high men-
talization (Farkas et al., 2017). The scale formed by all the codes achieved a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .70. Six independent
coders who had received prior training coded the video recordings. Inter-coder reliability was randomly assessed for 30 % of the
videos. The correlations between two independent coders ranged from .83 to .98 (M = .92), and Cohen’s kappa ranged from .55 to
.70 (M = .63). In this study, only mentalization categories (low, adequate, high) were considered.

1
http://www.crececontigo.gob.cl/

4
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the sample at the beginning of the study.
Min. Max. Mean SD

Mothers’ age (years) 15 44 27.79 6.738

Children’s age T1 (months) 10 15 12.00 1.370
Children’s age T2 (months) 28 33 29.31 1.189
Age of admission at educ. center 3 12 7.40 2.530
Average hours of attendance (weekly) 10 50 38.68 7.243
N %
Family SES
Low 48 53.4
Middle 21 23.3
High 21 23.3
Maternal education
No education or primary incomplete 2 2.2
Primary complete 15 16.6
Secondary complete 30 33.3
Vocational training (some or complete) 14 15.6
University training (some or complete) 21 23.3
Postgraduate studies 8 8.9
Children sex
Male 51 56.7
Female 39 43.3
Type of center
Public 55 61.5
Private 35 38.5

N = 90.

2.2.3. Parenting skills

Parenting skills were assessed through the Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO; Roggman, Cook, Innocenti,
Jump Norman, & Christiansen, 2009), which provides information regarding four of the competences considered in this study:
affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching. This instrument is an evidence-based observational measure of parenting
interactions. PICCOLO is a reliable and valid 29-item measure of parent-child interaction for parents with children between the ages
of 10 and 42 months (Roggman et al., 2013). Parent-child dyads are observed during 10 min of free play using toys provided in two or
three bags (books, toys for pretend play, age-appropriate manipulative toys), and the observations are subsequently coded by a
trained observer. The 29 items reflect parent interaction behaviors and are scored according to their frequency as 0 (no behavior
observed), 1 (barely observed), and 2 (clearly observed). The items are grouped into 4 domains: (a) affection (7 items; e.g., item 2
“smiles at child”), involving physical and verbal expressions of affection, positive emotions, positive evaluation and positive regard;
(b) responsiveness (7 items; e.g., item 2 “changes pace or activity to meet child’s interests or needs”), which includes reacting
sensitively to a child’s cues and expressions of needs or interests and reacting positively to the child’s behavior; (c) encouragement (7
items; e.g., item 3 “support child’s choices or activity changes”), which considers parents’ support of children’s efforts, exploration,
independence, play, choices, creativity, and initiative; and (d) teaching (8 items; e.g., item 1 “explains reasons for something to
child”), which includes cognitive stimulation, explanations, conversation, joint attention, and shared play. The instrument generates
a score between 0 and 14 on each domain (0–16 for teaching) and a total score ranging from 0 to 58 (the total score is the sum of the
scores on all items). The instrument’s reliability is good, showing an average interrater reliability correlation coefficient of .77 for the
total scores assigned by pairs of observers (.80 for affection, .76 for responsiveness, .73 for encouragement and .69 for teaching). The
instrument also shows a good correlation between the scores assigned by raters of different ethnicities; the correlation for the total
score between observers of different ethnicities averaged .80 (.78 for affection, .68 for responsiveness, .66 for encouragement and .75
for teaching). The analysis of Cronbach’s alpha for the total instrument was .91 (.78 for affection, .75 for responsiveness, .77 for
encouragement and .80 for teaching), and the instrument had good results for construct and predictive validity (Roggman et al.,
2013). This instrument was adapted to a Chilean sample with the authors’ authorization. The inter-coder agreement was between .85
and .98 for the dimensions. Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .62 for affection, .83 for responsiveness, .78 for encouragement, and
.73 for teaching (Farkas et al., 2016). For the affection dimension, items 3, 4 and 5 were not considered, and the dimension score was
prorated to increase the reliability of this dimension; this dimension had a final reliability of .79, and all dimensions reached the
acceptable minimum of .65 (DeVellis, 2011). In the current study, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .80 for affection, .82 for
responsiveness, .79 for encouragement, and .75 for teaching.

2.2.4. Children’s language skills

Children’s language was assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Third Edition (BSID III) Language
Scale (Bayley, 2006). This scale examines the development of children’s language over the age range of 1–42 months. The language
scale is administered directly to the child in the presence of the parent, considers a series of items distributed by age, and is
subdivided into two subscales: receptive communication (49 items) and expressive (48 items) communication. The scale provides raw
and standard scores for each subscale and total scale, based on a normative group of US children. Although the administration of the

5
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

scale is time-consuming and it has not been standardized in Chile, we chose it because it represents a gold standard in studies on early
development. The scale has good indexes for construct, predictive, and discriminative validity. Its reliability was examined in a
sample of 1700 American children through the bipartition method, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .91–.93 (Albers &
Grieve, 2007). We used a version of this scale that had been translated into Spanish; in a sample of 174 12-month-old and 30-month-
old Chilean children with characteristics similar to those of the children in this study, that version obtained a reliability of between
.87 and .91 (Farkas, Santelices, & Himmel, 2011). Because this instrument has not been standardized in Chile, only raw scores were
used.

2.2.5. Children’s socioemotional skills

Children’s socioemotional skills were assessed using the Functional Emotional Assessment Scale, FEAS (Greenspan, DeGangi, &
Wieder, 2001). This scale was developed as a criterion-referenced instrument for children 7 months to 4 years of age. Although it was
originally designed to assess emotional functioning in children with constitutional and maturation-based problems, it has been
successfully used with children who show normal development (Greenspan et al., 2001). The scale provides a systematic assessment
of the child’s and the caregiver’s functional emotional capacities. The scale offers 6 versions that are specific to the child’s age and
provides scores for children in 3–6 dimensions (depending on the version used) as well as a total score; the dimensions considered are
(a) self-regulation and interest in the world, (b) forming relationships, attachment and engagement, (c) purposeful two-way com-
munication, (d) behavioral organization, problem-solving and internalization, (e) representational capacity and elaboration of
symbolic thinking, and (f) emotional thinking. The scale has adequate construct and concurrent validity. The reliability coefficients
between observers ranged from .90 to .92 for the caregiver scores and from .91 to .98 for the child scores (DeGangi & Greenspan,
2001). For this study, a Chilean adaptation of three versions of the FEAS was used: (a) 10–12 months, (b) 13–18 months and (c)
25–35 months; the inter-coder agreement was 80 %. The first two versions report scores for the first three dimensions, and the last
version reports scores for five dimensions. The total score and the scores generated for each dimension were considered in the
analyses. In the current study, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .85 for the 10–12 months version, .83 for the 13–18 months
version, and .92 for the 25–35 months version.

2.3. Procedure

Initially, various childcare nurseries in the city of Santiago were contacted to obtain authorization to conduct this study. In the
centers that agreed to participate in the study, all mothers whose children met the age requirements (10–15 months) were contacted,
and all mothers who agreed to participate were included. Prior to the evaluation, the participating mothers were asked to sign an
informed consent form. The evaluation consisted of first asking the mothers to complete a sociodemographic questionnaire to be used
in the sample characterization. Video recordings of the dyads’ interactions during free play and their storytelling interactions were
performed in each center in a room specifically prepared for this activity. The children were then assessed using Bayley’s language
scale in the presence of the mother or a teacher, and the assessments were repeated at T2. The first assessment was conducted when
the children were 10–15 months old (T1), and the second assessment (T2) was conducted 18 months later when the children were
28–33 months old. Each instrument was coded by independent teams of coders; the teams were the same at both time points, and the
team members were blinded to their previous ratings.

3. Analyses and results

3.1. Descriptions of mothers’ competences

At T1, the mean total maternal sensitivity score was 2.08. In the PICCOLO dimensions, the mothers’ means were 12.43 for
affection, 11.79 for responsiveness, 10.15 for encouragement, and 9.07 for teaching. A total of 18.9 % of the mothers were classified
in the low mentalization category. At T2, the mean total maternal sensitivity score was 2.22. For the PICCOLO dimensions, the

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for mothers’ competences.
Mothers T1 (n = 90) Mothers T2 (n = 73)

Min-Max Mean Std. Deviation Min-Max Mean Std. Deviation t (p)

Sensitivity Scale
Total sensitivity score 1.4−2.8 2.08 0.391 1.3−3.0 2.22 0.417 2.65 (.010)
PICCOLO dimensions
Affection 5.0−14.0 12.43 2.310 5.3−14.0 12.95 2.152 1.44 (.156)
Responsiveness 3.0−14.0 11.79 2.519 3.0−14.0 12.86 2.077 3.40 (.001)
Encouragement 2.0−14.0 10.15 3.207 3.0−14.0 11.40 2.655 3.00 (.004)
Teaching 1.0−16.0 9.07 3.464 4.6−16.0 12.65 2.763 10.23 (< .001)
Mentalization category Frequency Percent Frequency Percent X2 (p)
Low 17 18.9 15 20.3 1.25 (.010)
Adequate 40 44.4 40 55.1
High 34 36.7 18 24.6

6
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Table 3
Correlational analyses between cognitive and affective dimensions.
Sensitivity Affection Responsiveness Mentalization Encouragement Teaching

Sensitivity Corr.(1) 1 .38** .56** .27** .49** .59**

Sig. < .001 < .001 .001 < .001 < .001
Affection Corr.(1) .38** 1 .63** .33** .58** .47**
Sig. < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001
Responsiveness Corr.(1) .56** .63** 1 .22** .71** .68**
Sig. < .001 < .001 .007 < .001 < .001
Mentalization Corr.(2) .27** .33** .22** 1 .21** .29**
Sig. .001 < .001 .007 .007 < .001
Encouragement Corr.(1) .49** .58** .71** .21** 1 .60**
Sig. < .001 < .001 < .001 .007 < .001
Teaching Corr.(1) .59** .47** .68** .29** .60** 1
Sig. < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001

N = 163 (nT1 = 90, nT2 = 73). (1) Pearson correlation, (2) Spearman correlation. ** p < .01.

mothers’ means were 12.95 for affection, 12.86 for responsiveness, 11.40 for encouragement, and 12.65 for teaching. A total of 20.3
% of the mothers were classified in the low mentalization category (see Table 2).
Analyses using paired-samples t-tests revealed differences in the mothers’ competences at the two ages, with significantly higher
scores at 30 months for sensitivity, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching. For mentalization, the percentage of mothers in the
adequate and low categories increased, and the percentage in the high category decreased (see Table 2). Correlation analyses among
the six competences showed low and moderate associations (see Table 3).

3.2. Identification of mothers’ profiles

To identify mothers’ profiles, a two-step cluster analysis was used. This procedure was conducted separately at T1 (n = 90) and T2
(n = 73) and was based on the six aspects considered in this study: sensitivity, affection, and responsiveness (as affective dimen-
sions); and mentalization, encouragement, and teaching (as cognitive dimensions). A two-step cluster analysis was chosen because it
is appropriate for both continuous and categorical data and allows adequate treatment of longitudinal data (Bittmann & Gelbard,
2007). Standardization of the scores was first conducted to ensure that classification was not impacted by differences in scale
variability. The analyses showed a 3-cluster solution in which each variable had a significant impact.
Discriminant analyses in which cluster group membership was considered the grouping variable and the predictive variables (the
competence scores) were the independent variables were conducted for the two time points to confirm that the original profiles
assigned by the cluster analyses were correct. The predictive models obtained by these analyses were significant, indicating that, at
T1, 98.9 % of the original cases were correctly classified and that 91.7 % of the cases were correctly classified at T2.
The profile of each cluster was defined by the pattern of scores across all of the clustering variables. At T1, profile 1 (n = 21, 23.3
%) consisted of mothers who had scores below the mean on all of the affective and cognitive dimensions [sensitivity (-0.79), affection
(-0.89), responsiveness (-0.99), mentalization (-0.66), encouragement (-0.90), and teaching (-0.87)]; thus, this profile is referred to as
poorly competent.
Profile 2 (n = 34, 37.8 %) consisted of mothers who had scores above the mean on three aspects [affection (0.35), responsiveness
(0.33), and encouragement (0.31)]. In the other aspects [sensitivity (0.11), mentalization (-0.24), and teaching (0.24)], they had
scores near the mean; this profile is referred to as average competent. Profile 3 (n = 35, 38.9 %) consisted of mothers who had scores
above the mean on almost all of the dimensions: [sensitivity (0.77), affection (0.59), responsiveness (0.73), mentalization (1.13),
encouragement (0.68), and teaching (0.70)]; this profile is referred to as highly competent (see Fig. 1).
At T2, very similar results were observed, so the nomenclature was preserved. Profile 1 (poorly competent) (n = 6, 8.2 %)
considered mothers with scores below the mean on all of the affective and cognitive dimensions [sensitivity (-0.93), affection (-2.25),
responsiveness (-1.92), mentalization (-0.44), encouragement (-1.80), and teaching (-1.22)]. Profile 2 (average competent) (n = 23,
31.5 %) consisted of mothers who had a score above the mean on one aspect [affection (0.30)]. In the other aspects, their scores were
near the mean [sensitivity (-0.04), responsiveness (0.18), mentalization (-0.10), encouragement (0.10) and teaching (-0.09)]. Profile
3 (highly competent) (n = 44, 60.3 %) consisted of mothers who scored above the mean on almost all of the dimensions: [sensitivity
(0.34), affection (0.24), responsiveness (0.33), mentalization (0.31), encouragement (0.40), and teaching (0.52)] (see Fig. 2).
The cluster analysis also shows the predictors’ importance for the suggested clusters, assigning a score between 0 and 1 to each
predictor, where 0 corresponds to a not important predictor, and 1 corresponds to a very important predictor. For these analyses,
mentalization occupied the first place of importance at T1, followed by responsiveness, while encouragement and responsiveness
occupied the first places at T2. Sensitivity was the less important predictor at both times (see Fig. 3).

3.3. Profiles’ relationship to mothers’ and children’s variables

To analyze whether some mothers’ and children’s characteristics were related to these profiles, correlational analyses were
conducted between the mothers’ profiles and mothers’ ages, SES (low, middle, high) and educational levels (organized into six

7
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Fig. 1. Three-cluster solution for mothers at T1.

N = 90. Profile 1 n = 21 (23.3 %), Profile 2 n = 34 (37.8 %), Profile 3 n = 35 (38.9 %). The analyses were conducted with standardized scores.
Because mentalization was a categorical variable, a high category was considered 1, an adequate category was considered 0, and a low category was
considered -1.

Fig. 2. Three-cluster solution for mothers at T2.

N = 73. Profile 1 n = 6 (8.2 %), Profile 2 n = 23 (31.5 %), Profile 3 n = 44 (60.3 %). The analyses were conducted using standardized scores.
Because mentalization was a categorical variable, a high category was considered 1, an adequate category was considered 0, and a low category was
considered -1.

Fig. 3. Six dimensions ordered by predictors’ importance for cluster analyses.

categories) and the children’s sex and ages (Spearman’s coefficients and χ2 tests).
The mothers’ profiles at both time points were related to maternal education, SES, and age but not to children’s sex; mothers with
higher educational levels, SES and age had profiles of higher competence. Based on this information, the analyses of mothers’ profiles
and children’s outcomes controlled for maternal age and educational level. The correlation between educational level and SES was
very high (rs = .76, p < .001); thus, only educational level was considered (see Table 4).
Mothers improved their profiles at T2 (x2 = 12.67, p = 0.013), with an increase in the proportion of cases with highly competent
profiles and a decrease in the proportion of cases with poorly competent and average competent profiles. Cross-tab analysis shows
that 53.4 % of the mothers were placed in the same profiles at both time points and that this percentage varied according to profile;
only 16.7 % of the mothers in the poorly competent profile remained in this category, while the remaining 83.3 % improved. Of the
mothers with average competent profiles, 75.9 % remained in this category, and 68.4 % of the mothers with highly competent
profiles remained in that category (see Table 5).

8
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Table 4
Correlational analyses between mothers’ profiles and mothers’ and children’s characteristics.
Mothers’ profiles T1 Mothers’ profiles T2 Mothers’ age SES Mothers’ education Children’s sex

Mothers’ profiles T1 Corr.(1) 1 .38** .36** .44** .44** .13

Sig. < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 .242
Mothers’ profiles T2 Corr.(1) .38** 1 .30* .37** .41** .01
Sig. < .001 .010 .002 < .001 .958
Mothers’ age Corr.(1) .36** .30* 1 .63** .54** −.23*
Sig. < .001 .010 < .001 < .001 .033
SES Corr.(1) .44** .37** .63** 1 .76** .03
Sig. < .001 .002 < .001 < .001 .769
Mothers’ education Corr.(1) .44** .41** .54** .76** 1 .03
Sig. < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 .771
Children’s sex Corr.(1) .13 .01 −.23* .03 .03 1
Sig. .242 .958 .033 .769 .771

Spearman correlation. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 5
Cross-tabulation between mothers’ profiles at T1 and T2.
Time 1 Time 2 Total

Poorly competent Average competent Highly competent

Poorly competent N 4 13 7 24
% 16.7 % 54.2 % 29.2 % 32.9 %
Average competent N 1 22 7 30
% 3.4 % 75.9 % 29.2 % 41.1 %
Highly competent N 2 4 13 19
% 10.5 % 21.1 % 68.4 % 26.0 %
Total N 7 39 27 73
% 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

3.4. Children’s language and socioemotional skills as a function of mothers’ profiles

For the analysis of mothers’ profiles and children’s outcomes, several ANCOVAs were conducted to determine whether children’s
language and socioemotional skills assessed at T1 and T2 differed as a function of their mothers’ profiles. In these analyses, we
controlled for mothers’ age and educational level. Children’s age was controlled only for language analyses.

3.4.1. Children’s language skills

At T1, significant differences were observed for expressive language, F(2) = 3.63, p = .031, ηp2 = .087, and total language, F(2) =
3.98, p = .023, ηp2 = .095. Post hoc analyses revealed that children of highly competent mothers achieved higher scores than
children of poorly competent and average mothers on expressive language (LSD = 0.66, p = .023 for poorly competent, LSD = 0.51,

Fig. 4. Distribution of marginal means in children’s language as a function of mothers’ profiles.

Note: RL Receptive language; EL Expressive language; TL total language; T1 Time 1 n = 90; T2 Time 2 n = 73. All variables are expressed as z-
scores.

9
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Fig. 5. Distribution of the marginal mean of children’s socioemotional skills as a function of mothers’ profiles.
Note: SR Self-regulation; R Relationships; C Communication; BO Behavioral organization; R Representation; T1 n = 90; T2 n = 73. All variables are
expressed as z-scores.

p = .031 for average competent) and on total language (LSD = 0.73, p = .014 for poorly competent, LSD = 0.51, p = .033 for
average competent) (see Fig. 4).
Similarly, at T2, significant differences were observed for expressive language, F(2) = 3.86, p = .026, ηp2 = .111, and total
language, F(2) = 3.66, p = .031, ηp2 = .106. Children of highly competent mothers and children of average competent mothers
achieved higher scores than did children of poorly competent mothers on expressive language (LSD = 1.16, p = .008, and LSD =
0.94, p = .031) and total language (LSD = 1.20, p = .009, and LSD = 1.03, p = .027) (see Fig. 4).

3.4.2. Children’s socioemotional skills

At T1, significant differences were observed for the dimensions of self-regulation, F(2) = 11.34, p < .001, ηp2 = .211, relation-
ships, F(2) = 15.72, p < .001, ηp2 = .270, and communication, F(2) = 9.95, p < .001, ηp2 = .190, as well as for total socioemotional
score, F(2) = 17.85, p < .001, ηp2 = .296. Post hoc analyses revealed that children of highly and average competent mothers achieved
higher scores than children of poorly competent mothers on self-regulation (LSD = 1.33, p < .001 and LSD = 0.91, p < .001),
relationships (LSD = 1.42, p < .001 and LSD = 1.10, p < .001), communication (LSD = 1.22, p < .001 and LSD = 0.95, p <
.001) and the total scale (LSD = 1.51, p < .001 and LSD = 1.21, p < .001) (see Table 5).
At T2, significant differences were observed for the dimensions of self-regulation, F(2) = 6.20, p = .003, ηp2 = .160, relationships,
F(2) = 5.88, p = .005, ηp2 = .153, communication, F(2) = 7.90, p < .001, ηp2 = .195, behavioral organization, F(2) = 9.66, p < .001,
ηp2 = .229, and total socioemotional score, F(2) = 7.95, p < .001, ηp2 = .196. Post hoc analyses revealed that children of highly
competent mothers achieved higher scores than children of poorly and average competent mothers on self-regulation (LSD = 1.43,
p = .002 and LSD = 0.61, p = .022), relationships (LSD = 1.21, p = .012 and LSD = 0.77, p = .006), communication (LSD =
1.45, p < .001 and LSD = 0.69, p = .006), behavioral organization (LSD = 1.79, p < .001 and LSD = 0.56, p = .024), and the
total scale (LSD = 1.55, p < .001 and LSD = 0.74, p = .006). In addition, children of average competent mothers achieved higher
scores than children of poorly competent mothers on behavioral organization (LSD = 1.23, p = .006) (see Fig. 5).

3.4.3. Mothers’ profiles as predictors of children’s skills

Finally, a hierarchical regression model was used to analyze whether mothers’ profiles at T1 predicted children’s skills at T2.
Regression analyses considered three models for each skill; model 1 included the score of that skill at T1, model 2 included mothers’
age and education (and children’s age in the case of language analyses), and model 3 included mothers’ profiles at T1. Only the last
model is reported in the tables.
For language, mothers’ profiles were a significant predictor; more competent mothers at T1 predicted higher skills in their
children at T2 in receptive (β = .39, t = 3.10, p = .003), expressive (β = .25, t = 1.99, p = .050), and total language (β = .34, t =
2.64, p = .011) (see Table 6). In contrast, mothers’ profiles at T1 did not predict children’s socioemotional skills at T2.

4. Discussion

This study confirmed that a set of six mothers’ competences can be organized at both 12 and 30 months of age of their children
into three profiles. These profiles were associated with mothers’ and children’s characteristics and were related to the children’s
language and socioemotional outcomes at both ages.
With respect to the first aim of the study, the results revealed three profiles that were highly similar at the two evaluation times.
The profiles were not organized according to the prevalence of affective versus cognitive dimensions as expected; instead, they were
organized according to the mothers’ level of competence. Thus, the three profiles were labeled highly, average, and poorly

10
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Table 6
Mothers’ profiles at Time 1 as predictors of children’s language at Time 2.
Receptive language Expressive language Total language

Predictors β β β
Receptive language T1 z-score .17 .01 .10
Children’s age T2 .10 .25* .20
Mothers’ age −.11 −.29* −.21
Mothers’ education .19 .55** .40**
Mothers’ profiles T1 .39** .25* .34*
F 5.37** 8.11** 7.53**
R2 (R2 only for profiles T1) .31 (.11**) .42 (.04*) .41 (.08)

Note: The model was not significant for socioemotional skills; therefore, that parameter is not included here.
** p ≤ .01.
* p ≤ .05.

competent. The first profile, poorly competent, showed scores below the mean in all dimensions and was similar to profiles described
as unsupportive (Cook et al., 2012), detached or harsh (Brady-Smith et al., 2013) or withdrawn or harsh-intrusive (Dyer et al., 2014).
It is likely that the inclusion of negative dimensions would provide more specificity or sub-profiles for this profile, but we can
nevertheless refer to this profile as associated with poorly competent mothers. The second profile, average competent, showed scores
near the mean and was intermediate between the other two profiles. Finally, the third profile, highly competent, showed scores above
the mean in all dimensions and was similar to profiles described as supportive (Brady-Smith et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013) or child-
oriented (Dyer et al., 2014).
It is interesting to consider the fact that mothers with lower scores in one competence are likely to have lower scores in other
maternal competences, thus showing consistency in different parenting dimensions. In other words, the difference between the
profiles was not qualitative as expected but instead was quantitative and unidimensional, showing results similar to those that might
be obtained using a variable-center approach. The observed consistency between different competences raises the question of
whether encouragement of one competence might positively affect other competences, thus maintaining this consistency. This hy-
pothesis requires validation in future studies; however, it might be relevant to the design of intervention programs and interventions
focused on one competence because these interventions might enhance other competences as well. If valid, this finding could change
the discussion from which competence is more relevant to intervene with to which competence would be easier to work on in an
intervention.
Considering the second aim of the study, the results showed that mothers’ membership in a profile was related to maternal age,
SES, and educational level in the expected direction. These variables represent mothers’ experience and knowledge and have been
sufficiently related to mothers’ competences (see, for example, Bornstein, Hendricks, Haynes, & Painter, 2007; Brophy-Herb,
Stansbury, Bocknek, & Horodynski, 2012; Farkas et al., 2017). Thus, possible interventions should consider these aspects by focusing
on, for example, adolescent mothers and poorly educated mothers in high-risk contexts.
In addition, the mothers’ profiles were related to the children’s ages. The three profiles were the same at both time points, but a
mother’s membership in a specific profile often changed, with a significant increase in the percentage of mothers with highly
competent profiles and a corresponding decrease in the percentage of mothers with average and poorly competent profiles when their
children were 30 months of age. Specifically, the mothers who showed poorly competent profiles at the beginning of the study were
the group who changed most at the second assessment, while mothers with average competent profiles were the most stable group. A
possible explanation for this result is that a better understanding of the child, perhaps due to the child’s acquisition of language
during the second year of life, could improve maternal competences. Furthermore, these competences may self-enhance over time,
especially in less competent mothers. These results emphasize the relevance of earlier interventions that improve maternal com-
petences and impact children’s outcomes from the beginning, with a focus on mothers who show higher risk (low SES and education,
poorly competent profiles).
The final aim of this study was to analyze whether the mothers’ profiles were related to children’s language and socioemotional
outcomes. The results revealed clear differences in children’s outcomes at both ages tested; these differences were shown to be related
to the mothers’ profiles after controlling for some variables (mothers’ age and educational level, children’s age). Children with highly
competent and average competent mothers achieved significantly higher scores compared with children with poorly competent
mothers on total and expressive language and with respect to almost all socioemotional skills assessed at 12 and 30 months, con-
sistent with previous findings based on a variable-center approach (e.g., Bernier et al., 2010; Landry et al., 2002; Page et al., 2010;
Roggman et al., 2013; Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006, 2008). It is striking that the mothers’ profiles were not related to the children’s
receptive language at the same age; however, they were a significant predictor of later receptive language skills and thus had a long-
term effect on children’s receptive skills. These results validate the distinctions between these maternal profiles and indicate their
relevance to influencing and predicting children’s skills; they also provide evidence for the relevance of promoting these maternal
competences at early ages.
The study of language and socioemotional skills and their predictors in Chile is relevant because these factors are related to
several areas of child development. Previous studies showed lower language development in Chilean children compared with other
countries and a larger gap between children of different SES; 41.5 % of girls and 52 % of boys of low SES were found to have language

11
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

delays (Schonhaut, Rojas, & Kaempffer, 2005). Socioemotional development has been less studied, but some studies show that 16.2 %
of Chilean children 12 months of age display socioemotional development that is below the average (Gálvez & Farkas, 2017) and that
the socioemotional competence of some children decreases between 12 and 30 months Farkas et al., 2017. At six years of age, 12.6 %
of children present behavioral problems according to their parents’ report, but 45.2 % present problems according to their teachers’
reports (De la Barra, Toledo, & Rodríguez, 2002).

5. Limitations, implications, and future directions

This study differs from other studies conducted in this area because it introduces new competences (such as mentalization),
includes different instruments in two different contexts (free play and storytelling situations) at two moments in children’s lives
(when the children are 12 months and 30 months of age), and considers Chilean samples, thereby providing novel information in the
field. However, this study also has some limitations given the reduced sample size and the fact that all of the studied families lived in
Santiago and all of the children attended nurseries. Thus, the results are not representative of all Chilean mothers and should be
considered with caution. Future studies involving larger and more representative samples could provide supporting evidence for
these results. In addition, the results showed profiles that were not organized according to the expected distinction between affective
and cognitive factors. A possible reason for this could be that these distinctions may only appear when children are older; it is also
possible that other factors such as SES or educational level are related to more specific and qualitative profiles. These possibilities can
be addressed in future studies.
Despite these limitations, these results of this study validate the distinctions between maternal profiles as well as the relevance of
maternal profiles to influencing and predicting children’s skills, providing evidence of the relevance of promoting these maternal
competences at early ages. Future studies could continue to provide supporting evidence in this regard. Studies of older children
could show how these profiles evolve and whether these competences are organized similarly or differently by considering, for
example, competent mothers with a focus on cognitive versus affective profiles. Furthermore, considering that cultural specificities
are relevant, replicating this study with mothers of different cultures could be interesting to determine whether the dimensions
considered can be organized into the same profiles. Finally, it could be interesting for future studies to include other adults, such as
fathers and teachers, who are relevant in the lives of small children.

6. Conclusions

The person-centered approach used in this research is related to the need to consider the person as a functional whole (Kerr et al.,
2012); it contrasts with a variable-centered approach in which every parental dimension is examined in isolation. This approach
presents some advantages, such as its simultaneous consideration of different dimensions and its applicability to multidimensional
models (Weaver & Kim, 2008). Indeed, the inclusion of only “positive” aspects focuses interventions not on deficits but on
strengthening personal resources and promoting positive competences, a model that has been shown to be successful (see, for ex-
ample, Roggman, Boyce et al., 2009; Roggman, Boyce, & Innocenti, 2008).
Studies of specific distinctions between maternal profiles and their relationship to outcomes for Chilean children have important
implications for efforts developed by various Chilean programs to reduce children’s disparities, especially regarding language and
socioemotional skills. The results of this study showed that younger mothers with low SES and education are very likely to provide
suboptimal environments for their children, particularly when they are very young, thus putting them at risk for later developmental
and behavioral problems. These children and mothers, therefore, are those who should be targeted for special services. These findings
highlight the importance of considering the study of the organization of maternal competences into profiles in an effort to provide
developmental orientation and support for promotion and intervention programs that are appropriate for diverse families. A growing
understanding of these profiles should enrich the outcomes of research and the effectiveness of intervention efforts to bridge the
developmental gap observed in Chilean children.

Funding

This research was supported by funding provided by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico FONDECYT,
China Nº 1110087 and Nº 1160110

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Chamarrita Farkas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration. Carolina Álvarez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing -
original draft. María del Pilar Cuellar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Elena Avello: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Diana Marcela Gómez: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original
draft. Pablo Pereira: Investigation, Writing - original draft.

12
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.
101443.

References

Ainsworth, Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. U.S.A: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Albers, C., & Grieve, A. (2007). Test review: Bayley, N. (2006). “Bayley scales of infant and toddler development–Third edition”. San Antonio, TX–Harcourt assess-
ment. Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(2), 180–190.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Bayley, N. (2006). Scales of infant and toddler development. San Antonio Texas: PsychCorp.
Bell, M. A., & Calkins, S. (2010). Integrating emotion and cognition in developmental research. In S. Calkins, & M. A. Bell (Eds.). Child development at the intersection of
emotion and cognition (pp. 247–251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Belsky, J., & Fearon, R. M. P. (2008). Precursors of attachment security. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 295–316). New York: Guilford Press.
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self‐regulation: Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning.
Child Development, 81(1), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x.
Bittmann, R. M., & Gelbard, R. M. (2007). Decision-making method using a visual approach for cluster analysis problems; indicative classification algorithms and
grouping scope. Expert Systems, 24(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2007.00428.x.
Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1989). Maternal responsiveness and cognitive development in children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
1989(43), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219894306.
Bornstein, M., Hendricks, C., Haynes, O. M., & Painter, K. (2007). Maternal sensitivity and child responsiveness: Associations with social context, maternal char-
acteristics, and child characteristics in a multivariate analysis. Infancy, 12(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00240.x.
Boyd, R. C., Zayas, L. H., & McKee, M. D. (2006). Mother-infant interaction, life events and prenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms among urban minority
women in primary care. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(2), 139–148.
Brady-Smith, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ispa, J. M., Fuligni, A. S., Chazan-Cohen, R., et al. (2013). Mother-infant interactions in Early Head Start: A
person-oriented within-ethnic group approach. Parenting, 13(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2013.732430.
Brophy-Herb, H., Stansbury, K., Bocknek, E., & Horodynski, M. (2012). Modeling maternal emotion-related socialization behaviors in a low-income sample: Relations
with toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.005.
Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoain, R., & Campos, R. G. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. In N. A. Fox (ed.), The development of
emotional regulation (pp. 284–303). Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development. Development Review,
8, 1–51.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arseneault, L., et al. (2004). Maternal expressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems:
Using monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development. Developmental Psychology, 40, 149–161.
Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., Pan, B. A., Kisker, E. E., et al. (2009). Low-income children’s school readiness: Parent contributions over the
first five years. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 958–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280903362402.
Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.401.
Cole, P., Armstrong, L. M., & Pemberton, C. (2010). The role of language in the development of emotion regulation. In S. Calkins, & M. A. Bell (Eds.). Child development
at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 55–77). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cook, G. A., Roggman, L. A., & D’zatko, K. (2012). A person-oriented approach to understanding dimensions of parenting in low-income mothers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27(4), 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.06.001.
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2009). What an intervention design reveals about how parent affect their children’s academic achievement and behavior problems. In J.
G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Bristol-Power (Eds.). Parenting and the child's world: Influences on academic, intellectual, and social-emotional development (pp. 75–
98). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Crittenden, P. (2006). A dynamic maturational model of attachment. ANZJFT, 27, 105–115.
De la Barra, F., Toledo, V., & Rodríguez, J. (2002). Estudio de salud mental en dos cohortes de niños escolares de Santiago occidente. I: Prevalencia y seguimiento de
problemas conductuales y cognitivos [Mental health study in two cohorts of schoolchildren from west Santiago. I: Prevalence and follow up of behavioral and
cognitive problems]. Revista Chilena de Neuro-psiquiatria, 40(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92272002000100002.
DeGangi, G. A., & Greenspan, S. I. (2001). Research on the FEAS: Test development, reliability, and validity studies. In S. I. Greenspan, G. A. DeGangi, & S. Wieder
(Eds.). The functional emotional assessment scale (FEAS) for infancy and early childhood. Clinical and research applications (pp. 167–247). Bethesda, MD:
Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications, Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dodge, K. A. (2009). Mediation, moderation, and mechanisms in how parenting affects children’s aggressive behavior. In J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Bristol-
Power (Eds.). Parenting and the child's world: Influences on academic, intellectual, and social-emotional development (pp. 215–230). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Doesum, K., Hosman, C., Riksen-Walraven, M., & Hoefnagles, C. (2007). Correlates of depressed mothers’ sensitivity. American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 46(6), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318040b272.
Dyer, N., Owen, M. T., & Caughy, M. O. (2014). Ethnic differences in profiles of mother–child interactions and relations to emerging school readiness in African
American and Latin American children. Parenting, Science and Practice, 14(3/4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2014.972756.
Ensink, K., & Mayes, L. C. (2010). The development of mentalization in children from a theory of mind perspective. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 30(4), 301–337. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07351690903206504.
Ensink, K., Normandin, L., Plamondon, A., Berthelot, N., & Fonagy, P. (2016). Intergenerational pathways from reflective functioning to infant attachment through
parenting. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 48(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000030.
Farkas C., Muzard A., Gallardo A.M., Strasser K., Badilla G. and Santelices M.P., PICCOLO’s cross-cultural adaptation process implemented in Chile, 2016 May, Poster
session presented at the 15th World Congress of the World Association of Infant Mental Health, Prague, Czech Republic.
Farkas C., Santelices M.P. and Himmel E., Maturational and cultural analysis of gestural communication of internal states’ expression and comprehension on infants
and toddlers, and its impacts on social emotional development, Fondecyt Project Nº 1110087, 2011, Santiago, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Psychology School.
Farkas, C., Strasser, K., Badilla, G., & Santelices, M. P. (2017). Mentalization in Chilean educational staff with 12 -month-old children: Does it make a difference in
relation to what children receive at home? Early Education and Development, 28(7), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1287994.

13
C. Farkas, et al. Infant Behavior and Development 59 (2020) 101443

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G., & Higgit, A. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental state: The reflective Self in parent and child and its significance
for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13(1), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(199123)12:3<201 AID-IMHJ2280120307 > 3.0.
CO; 2-7.
Gálvez, A. P., & Farkas, C. (2017). La relación entre mentalización y sensibilidad en madres de infantes de un año de edad y su rol en su desarrollo socioemocional
[Mentalization-ensitivity relationship in mothers of one-year-old infants and its effect on their social-emotional development]. Psykhé, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.7764/psykhe.26.1.879.
Greenspan, S. I., & Shanker, S. (2004). The first idea: How symbols, language, and intelligence evolved from our primate ancestors to modern humans. Reading, MA: Perseus
Books.
Greenspan, S. I., DeGangi, G. A., & Wieder, S. (2001). The functional emotional assessment scale (FEAS) for infancy and early childhood: Clinical and research applications.
Bethesda, MD: Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Ozdemir, M. (2012). Perceived parenting style and adolescent adjustment: Revisiting directions of effects and the role of parental knowledge.
Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1540–1553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027720.
Kersten-Alvarez, L. E., Hosman, C. M. H., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., Van Doesum, K. T. M., & Hoefnagels, C. (2011). Which preventive interventions effectively enhance
depressed mother’s sensitivity? A meta-analysis. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32(3), 362–376.
Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., & Murtuza, M. (2013). Does “tiger parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent
developmental outcomes. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030612.
Landry, S. H., Miller-Loncar, C. L., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2002). The role of early parenting in children’s development of executive processes. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 21(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN2101_2.
Low, S., Snyder, J., & Shortt, J. W. (2012). The drift toward problem behavior during the transition to adolescence: The contributions of youth disclosure, parenting,
and older siblings. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00757.x.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.). Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Mandara, J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family psychology: A review of theory, methods, and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
6(2), 129–146.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., De Rosnay, M., Arnott, B., Leekam, S. R., & Turner, M. (2012). Mind‐mindedness as a multidimensional construct: Appropriate and non-
attuned mind‐related comments independently predict infant–Mother attachment in a socially diverse sample. Infancy, 17(4), 393–415.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M. (2001). Rethinking maternal sensitivity: Mother’s comments on infant’s mental processes predict security of
attachment at 12 months. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(5), 637–648.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Russel, J., & Clark-Carter, D. (1998). Security of attachment as a predictor of symbolic and mentalising abilities: A longitudinal study. Social
Development, 7, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507<.00147.
Meins, E., Centifanti, L. C. M., Fernyhough, C., & Fishburn, S. (2013). Maternal mind-mindedness and children’s behavioral difficulties: Mitigating the impact of low
socioeconomic status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9699-3.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Arnott, B., Leekam, S. R., & Rosnay, M. (2013). Mind‐mindedness and theory of mind: Mediating roles of language and perspectival
symbolic play. Child Development, 84(5), 1777–1790.
Page, M., Wilhelm, M. S., Gamble, W. C., & Card, N. A. (2010). A comparison of maternal sensitivity and verbal stimulation as unique predictors of infant social-
emotional and cognitive development. Infant Behavior & Development, 33(1), 101–110.
Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2008). Attachment security and parenting quality predict children’s problem-solving, attributions, and loneliness with peers.
Attachment & Human Development, 10(3), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730802113620.
Raver, C., & Zigler, E. (1997). Social competence: An untapped dimension of Head Start’s success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90017-X.
Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). Anger and children’s socioemotional development: Can parenting elicit a positive side to a negative emotion?
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(5), 845–856.
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., & Innocenti, M. S. (2008). Developmental parenting: A guide for early childhood practitioners. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.
Roggman, L. A., Cook, G. A., Innocenti, M. S., Jump Norman, V. K., & Christiansen, K. (2013). Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations linked to
Outcomes (PICCOLO) in diverse ethnic groups. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(4), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21389.
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., & Cook, G. A. (2009). Keeping kids on track: Impacts of a parenting-focused Early Head Start program on attachment security and
cognitive development. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 920–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280903118416.
Roggman, L. A., Cook, G. A., Innocenti, M. S., Jump Norman, V. K., & Christiansen, K. (2009). PICCOLO, parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations
linked to outcomes. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mother’s mental state language and theory-of-mind understanding. Child Development,
73, 734–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00435.
Santelices, M. P., Carvacho, C., Farkas, C., León, F., Galleguillos, F., & Himmel, E. (2012). Medición de la sensibilidad del adulto con niños de 6 a 36 meses de edad:
Construcción y análisis preliminares de la Escala de Sensibilidad del Adulto, E.S.A. [Adult sensitivity assessment in interaction with 6-36 months old children:
Design and preliminary analyses of Adult Sensitivity Scale]. Terapia Psicologica, 30(3), 19–29.
Schonhaut, L., Rojas, P., & Kaempffer, A. M. (2005). Factores de riesgo asociados a déficit del desarrollo psicomotor en preescolares de nivel socioeconómico bajo.
Comuna urbano rural, Región Metropolitana, 2003 [Risk factors related with psychomotor development deficit in low socioeconomic status preschoolers. Rural
urban locality, metropolitan area, 2003]. Revista Chilena de PediatrÃa, 76(6), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0370-41062005000600006.
Slade, A., Grienenberger, J., Bernbach, E., Levy, D., & Locker, A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, attachment, and the transmission gap: A preliminary study.
Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500245880.
Smith, K. E., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2006). The role of early maternal responsiveness in supporting school-aged cognitive development for children who vary in
birth status. Pediatrics, 117(5), 1608–1617.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Kuchirko, Y., & Song, L. (2014). Why is infant language learning facilitated by parental responsiveness? Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 23(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414522813.
Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2006). Mother and infant talk about mental states relates to desire language and emotion understanding. Child Development, 77(2),
465–481.
Taumoepeau, M., & Ruffman, T. (2008). Stepping stones to others’ minds: Maternal talk relates to child mental state language and emotion understanding at 15, 24,
and 33 months. Child Development, 79(2), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01126.x.
Weaver, S. R., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). A person-centered approach to studying the linkages among parent–child differences in cultural orientation, supportive parenting,
and adolescent depressive symptoms in Chinese American families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9221-3.

14