Child care in times of COVID-19:Predictors of distress in Dutch children and parents when re-entering center-based child care After a 2-month lockdown

As a consequence of the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) child care facilities all over the world were temporarily closed to minimize the spread of the virus. In Netherlands, the first closure lasted for almost 2 months. The return to the child care center after this significant interruption was expected to be challenging, because earlier studies demonstrated that transitions into child care can be stressful for both children and their parents. The current paper retrospectively examined the distress of Dutch children (aged 0–4) and their parents during the first 2 weeks after the reopening of child care centers, and what factors accounted for individual differences in distress. In total, 694 parents filled out an online questionnaire about stress during closure and distress after the reopening of child care centers. Furthermore, questions regarding several demographic variables and child care characteristics were included, as well as questionnaires measuring child temperament, parental separation anxiety, and parental perception of the child care quality. Results showed that younger children and children with parents scoring higher on separation anxiety experienced more distress after the reopening, as reported by parents. Furthermore, children were more distressed upon return when they attended the child care center for less hours per week after the reopening, experienced less stress during closure, and grew up in a one-parent family. With regard to parental distress after the reopening, we found that parents scoring higher on separation anxiety and fear of COVID-19 experienced more distress. Moreover, parents experiencing less stress during closure and mothers were more distressed when the child returned to the child care center. Finally, concurrent child and parental distress after reopening were positively related. The results of the current study may help professional caregivers to identify which children and parents benefit from extra support when children return to the child care center after an interruption. Especially the role that parental separation anxiety played in predicting both child and parental distress deserves attention. More research is required in order to study the underlying mechanisms of these associations and to design appropriate interventions

Behavioral genetics of temperament and frontal asymmetry in early childhood

Temperament has been suggested to be influenced by genetic and environmental factors. The current study examined genetic shared environmental and unique environmental factors accounting for variation in Fear, Effortful Control (EC), and Frontal Asymmetry (FA) in 4- to 6-year-old children using bivariate behavioral genetic modeling. We included a total of 214 same-sex twin pairs: 127 monozygotic (MZ) and 87 dizygotic (DZ) pairs. FA was measured during a rest electroencephalogram (EEG) recording, and Fear and EC were measured using parent report. Results show that differences between twins were best explained by genetic factors (about a quarter of the variance) and unique environmental factors (about three quarters of the variance). However, the cross-trait, within-twin correlations were not significant, implying no overlapping genetic or environmental factors on Fear and EC or on Fear and FA. Future research should try to elucidate the large role of unique environmental factors in explaining variance in these temperament-related traits

Replicating a Randomized Trial With Video-Feedback to Promote Positive Parenting in Parents of School-Aged Twins

In this randomized controlled trial, we investigated the effectiveness of the brief, home-based Videofeedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) in parents of 257 school-aged twin pairs (N = 514 children, Mage = 7.92, SD = 0.66), replicating a previous study testing the effectiveness of the intervention in parents with preschool-aged twins (Euser et al., 2021). We conducted two pretests (1 year apart) and one posttest 1 month after the intervention. An age-adequate twin-adapted version of the VIPP-SD was used in primary caregivers (91% female). We examined the main effect of the intervention on observed parental sensitivity and sensitive discipline and on attitudes toward sensitivity and sensitive discipline. We also investigated whether parents who are more susceptible to the environment, as measured by their self and partner-reported current temperamental reactivity, benefitted more from the intervention. In our sample with older children, the VIPP-SD did not significantly change observed parental sensitivity or sensitive discipline in the intervention group compared to the control group. The VIPP-SD did improve parents’ attitude toward sensitivity, but not toward discipline. Intervention effects were not moderated by temperamental reactivity of the parents, providing no support for the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Future research might examine the differential susceptibility hypothesis in parents using stressreactivity or genetic susceptibility markers instead of self-reported reactive temperament

Effects of the Video-feedback intervention to promote positive parenting and sensitive discipline on mothers’ neural responses to child faces:A randomized controlled ERP study including pre- and post-intervention measures

Parenting interventions have proven to be effective in enhancing positive parenting behavior and child outcomes. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms explaining the efficacy remain largely unknown. We tested effects of the Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) on mothers’ neural processing of child faces. Our primary focus was on the N170 and the secondary focus on the LPP. We expected the intervention to enhance the amplitudes of both ERP components in response to emotional compared to neutral faces. A total of 66 mothers visited the lab for two identical sessions separated by 4.28 months (SD = 0.86) during which a random 33% of the mothers received the VIPP-SD. During both pre- and post-intervention sessions, mothers’ electroencephalographic (EEG) activity in response to photographs of children’s neutral, happy and angry facial expressions were acquired. In contrast to our expectations, we found smaller (less negative) N170 amplitudes at post-test in the intervention group. There was no intervention effect on the LPP, although overall LPP amplitudes were more positive for neutral and angry compared to happy faces. Our study shows that the N170 is affected by the VIPP-SD, suggesting that the intervention promotes efficient, less effortful face processing. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register: NTR5312; Date registered: 3 January 2017

Child care in times of COVID-19: Predictors of distress in Dutch children and parents when re-entering center-based child care After a 2-month lockdown

As a consequence of the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) child care facilities all over the world were temporarily closed to minimize the spread of the virus. In Netherlands, the first closure lasted for almost 2 months. The return to the child care center after this significant interruption was expected to be challenging, because earlier studies demonstrated that transitions into child care can be stressful for both children and their parents. The current paper retrospectively examined the distress of Dutch children (aged 0-4) and their parents during the first 2 weeks after the reopening of child care centers, and what factors accounted for individual differences in distress. In total, 694 parents filled out an online questionnaire about stress during closure and distress after the reopening of child care centers. Furthermore, questions regarding several demographic variables and child care characteristics were included, as well as questionnaires measuring child temperament, parental separation anxiety, and parental perception of the child care quality. Results showed that younger children and children with parents scoring higher on separation anxiety experienced more distress after the reopening, as reported by parents. Furthermore, children were more distressed upon return when they attended the child care center for less hours per week after the reopening, experienced less stress during closure, and grew up in a one-parent family. With regard to parental distress after the reopening, we found that parents scoring higher on separation anxiety and fear of COVID-19 experienced more distress. Moreover, parents experiencing less stress during closure and mothers were more distressed when the child returned to the child care center. Finally, concurrent child and parental distress after reopening were positively related. The results of the current study may help professional caregivers to identify which children and parents benefit from extra support when children return to the child care center after an interruption. Especially the role that parental separation anxiety played in predicting both child and parental distress deserves attention. More research is required in order to study the underlying mechanisms of these associations and to design appropriate interventions

How Heritable are Parental Sensitivity and Limit-Setting? A Longitudinal Child-Based Twin Study on Observed Parenting

We examined the relative contribution of genetic, shared environmental and non-shared environmental factors to the covariance between parental sensitivity and limit-setting observed twice in a longitudinal study using a child-based twin design. Parental sensitivity and parental limit-setting were observed in 236 parents with each of their same-sex toddler twin children (Mage = 3.8 years; 58% monozygotic). Bivariate behavioral genetic models indicated substantial effects of similar shared environmental factors on parental sensitivity and limit-setting and on the overlap within sensitivity and limit-setting across 1 year. Moderate child-driven genetic effects were found for parental limit-setting in year 1 and across 1 year. Genetic child factors contributing to explaining the variance in limit-setting over time were the same, whereas shared environmental factors showed some overlap