European Journal of Psychology of Education

2007. Vol. XXII. n' I. 77-96

© 2007. l.S.P.A.

Scaffolding interaction in parent-child dyads:

Multimodal analysis of parental scaffolding with
task and non-task oriented children
Pekka Salonen
Janne Lepola
Marja Vauras
University of Turku, Finland

In this exploratory study we conceptualized and explored socio-

cognitive, emotional and motivational regulatory processes displayed
in scaffolding interaction between parents and their non-task and task-
oriented children. Based on the dynamic systems view and findings from
developmental research, we assumed that parents with non-task oriented
and task-oriented children have formed differential multimodal
interaction patterns which have been stabilized during repeated parent-
child scaffolding episodes. We hypothesized that, in comparison with
task-oriented parent-child dyads, parents with non-task oriented
children would show more non-optimal patterns in socio-cognitive,
motivational, and emotional realms of scaffolding regulation. The
sample consisted of 11 task-oriented and 12 non-task oriented
(extremely task-avoidant or socially dependent) 7-year-old children
with their parents. The children worked on picture arrangement and
brick construction tasks. The quality of parent-child regulation was
assessed both by global rating scales and by a micro-analytic
procedure focused on dyadic coordinations (e.g., parental intrusiveness,
directiveness, modulation of emotions and expectations). Global ratings
and micro-analyses did reveal group level differences in socio-emotional
regulation but not in socio-cognitive and motivational regulation.

Introduction

The major aims of the current research are twofold. First, we attempt to articulate the
socio-cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects of optimal and non-optimal parent-child
guidance pattems in terms of dynamic scaffolding match vs. mismatch. Second, we set out to
conduct a micro-analytic pilot study with the aim of exploring multimodal behavioural
This research was supported by Grant No. 201782 from the Couticil for Social Sciences, Acadettiy of Finland to
the third author, and by Grant No. 52039 to the second author.
78 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

patterns in parent-child scaffolding dyads with children typically showing task-oriented

(on-task) behaviours or non-task oriented (off-task) behaviours, such as task-avoidance and
social dependency.
There is extensive research evidence supporting the conclusion that early parenting
practices, particularly parental affection and control styles, are related to children's cognitive
performance in problem-solving tasks, later school achievement, socio-emotional adaptations,
and motivational patterns (for reviews, see O'Connor, 2002; Maccoby, 1992). More
specifically, matemal sensitivity, responsiveness, emotional warmth and limit setting tend to
promote children's academic performance, cognitive and emotional self-regulation, and
motivational autonomy, whereas mothers' unresponsiveness, insensitivity, over-directiveness,
intrusiveness and harshness are related to negative academic outcomes and tend to undermine
children's cognitive and emotional self-regulation, as well as motivational self-determination
(Aunola & Nurmi, 2004; Freund, 1990; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993; Hokoda & Fincham,
1995; Isabella & Belsky, 1991; Junttila, Vauras, & Laakkonen, 2006, this issue; Low, 2003;
Neitzel & Stright, 2003; Spinrad, Stifter, Donelan-McCall, & Turner, 2004; Wakschlag &
Hans, 1999; Winsler, 1998).
While several studies within the scaffolding paradigm have addressed parental facilitating
of children's leaming (Clarke-Stewart & Beck, 1999; Fidalgo & Pereira, 2005; Freund, 1990;
Gonzalez, 1996; Pacifici & Bearison, 1991), motivational autonomy (Grolnick, Gurland,
DeCourcey, & Jacob, 2002), emotional self-regulation (Kopecky, 2004), as well as parental
emotional support (Hubbs-Tait, McDonald-Culp, Culp, & Miller, 2002) and parental sensitivity
to developmental differences (Baker, Sonnenschein, & Gilat, 1996; Conner & Cross, 2003;
Plumert & Nichols-Whitehead, 1996), very few studies have examined simultaneously the
dyadic co-ordinations of socio-cognitive, socio-emotional, and motivational processes
involved in parent-child scaffolding interaction, or related such multimodal situational
patterns to long-term developmental trajectories (see, however, Fagot & Gauvain, 1997;
Neitzel & Stright, 2003). This scanty research has underscored the bidirectional nature of
parent-child guidance-related processes and the role of repetitive situational transactions in the
formation of developmental trajectories (Fagot & Gauvain, 1997; see also Gauvain &
DeMent, 1991 and Radke-Yarrow, 1989). For instance, based on their fmding that the
mother's early instructional and assistance style predicted the child's cognitive task
performance at age 5, Fagot and Gauvain (1997) suggested that transaction pattems might be
established between parents and children that lead cumulatively toward developmental
continuities. Yet empirical studies addressing the multimodal dynamics of, for instance,
maladaptive parent-child scaffolding interactions are virtually non-existent.
The present study can be seen as one of the first attempts to conceptualize and explore
scaffolding interactions from a dynamic systems perspective. Dynamic systems principles
provide a metatheoretical framework for describing how novel interaction pattems emerge,
become amplified, and stabilize over time through a system's intemal regulatory processes
(Granic & Hollenstein, 2003; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Thelen & Smith, 1994). One key
feature of interpersonal dynamic systems is the formation of stable patterns ("attractors"),
toward which interactants' behaviours tend to be pulled bringing them back to behave in
similar ways towards each other (Granic & Dishion, 2003; Hollenstein, Granic, Stoolmiller, &
Snyder, 2004; Thelen & Smith, 1994). This principle implies that ontogenetic developmental
acquisitions (e.g., a person's motivational and emotional response tendencies) cannot be
explained without considering regulations and developmental trajectories within complex
interpersonal dynamic systems (Smith & Thelen, 2003).
The dynamic systems view implies that children with differing motivational-developmental
profiles may have undergone innumerable scaffolding interactions, which have become repetitive
in nature (Dumas, Lemay, & Dauwalder, 2001; Hollenstein et al., 2004; Granic, Hollenstein,
Dishion, & Patterson, 2003). Gradually, these interactions have formed different developmental
trajectories for the dyads as well as differential motivational-emotional patterns for the
children. Dyadic interactions forming self-repeating pattems are always multimodal, i.e., they
include cognitive, emotional and motivational elements and their interpersonal co-ordinations.
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 79

Repetitive dyadic patterns are likely to be "recreated" in any new process with similar
contextual and socio-dynamic elements, as found in several domains of interpersonal research
(e.g., family and marital interactions, psychotherapy processes) applying dynamic systems
models, thus, having important developmental consequences in the future (Dumas &
LaFreniere, 1993; Granic & Hollenstein, 2003; Lewis, 2004).
Studies advocating transactional and dynamic systems approaches have focused on
bidirectional parent-child behaviour patterns and their time-related co-ordinations (for
reviews, see Granic & Hollenstein, 2003; Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Sameroff & Mackenzie,
2003). On the one hand, there is evidence that reciprocity, flexibility, dyadic synchrony, social
contingency, and modulation of negative emotions are important characteristics of interaction,
yielding positive learning and developmental outcomes. On the other hand, interactions
between parents and children with pervasive leaming and emotional-behavioural problems
show regular episodes of extreme and rigid unilateral power exertion, non-synchrony, lack of
social contingency, as well as bouts of mutual anger displays (Goodman & Linn, 2003; Granic
& Lamey, 2002; Hollenstein et al., 2004; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001; Snyder, Stoolmiller,
Wilson, & Yamamoto, 2003). Taken together, research on real-time bidirectional parent-child
interaction pattems underscores the developmental importance of coordination or dynamic
"match", i.e., reciprocity, mutuality and synchrony, of parents' and their children's socio-
cognitive and emotional behaviours.

Optimal scaffolding

The "scaffolding" - metaphor, widely used to describe global tutorial principles for
instmctional support, lends itself also to more process-oriented analyses of dynamic match
and mismatch between the guiding parents' and their children's behaviours (Hustedt & Raver,
2002; Neitzel & Stright, 2003; Stone, 1998). Scaffolding is a technique by which parents (or
teachers) temporarily support children as they are building their own skills and knowledge
structures (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). As Rogoff has underscored, the child is not merely
a recipient during such interactions. Rather, adult and child work together in an interdependent
fashion to create a "shared context for instructional communication" (Rogoff & Gardner,
1984, p. 113). Scaffolding involves the negotiation of meaning and the transfer of responsibility
for leaming within a social context. It comprises a gradual shift from other-regulation to self-
regulation where the child is assisted in attaining a higher level of independent functioning in
terms of cognitive self-regulation and motivational self-determination (autonomy)
(Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1998).
In optimal scaffolding, the adult applies the principle of contingent shifting, i.e., s/he
calibrates the task demands to meet the child's skill levels and varies the quality and amount
of assistance according to the changing level of the child's independent ftinctioning (Stone,
1998; Wood, 1980). When the child's level of independent functioning is low, more directive
adult regulation (e.g., modelling of sub-activities, concrete cueing) and environmental
structuring are provided. When new levels of independent functioning emerge, more non-
directive adult regulation (e.g., indirect verbal hints, strategic cueing) and less environmental
stmcturing are given to shift more responsibility to the child.
Another essential aspect of optimal scaffolding can be defmed as the minimal-sufficiency
principle, originally introduced and studied in motivation research contexts (Lepper, 1981).
The principle states that only a minimum of external incentives or rewards, or adult
directiveness, should be used to maximize the child's autonomous task-related efforts or
intrinsic motivation (Lepper, 1981). The parent's indirect cueing/prompting (e.g., "I don't do it
for you or tell you how to do it, but I can give you hints that help you figure out for yourself)
establishes a moderate gap or "constructive friction" (i.e., accommodation-promoting
discrepancy) between the cueing level and the child's level of self-regulated functioning (see
Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Since the parent's assistance is minimized and indirect cueing is
used, the child is being "pulled" by the moderate discrepancy or constructive friction toward
new levels of independent activity (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984).
80 P. SALONEN, J, LEPOLA, & M, VAURAS

An optimal match in emotional other-regulation presupposes the parent's ability to detect

the child's affective signals and modulate them appropriately (Salonen, Vauras, & Efklides,
2005; Wood et al,, 1976), Optimal parental emotion regulation includes (1) responding
positively to the child's positive emotional expressions ("cycle of positivity"), (2) responding
positively (or neutrally) to the child's negative emotional signs ("modulation of negativity"),
and (3) responding neutrally (or positively) to the child's neutral behaviours (Dix, 1991;
Salonen, Vauras, & Iiskala, 2004; Salonen & Vauras, 2006)
Establishing a motivational regulatory match during scaffolding presupposes the parent's
ability to perceive and respond in a supportive manner to the child's motivational signs, such
as verbalized expectations and causal attributions. Optimal motivational regulation comprises,
for example, (1) responding supportively to the child's negative verbalized expectations and
attributions (e,g., transmitting positive expectations and causal attributions), (2) responding
supportively, particularly in challenging situations, to the child's occasional self-enhancing
verbalizations and positive attributions (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995; Salonen & Vauras, 2006),

Non-optimal scaffolding

Research focusing on real-time interaction pattems during parent-child scaffolding has

revealed that the shift from other-regulation to self-regulation ("transfer of responsibility") can
be severely distorted. When compared to task oriented children, children showing non-task
oriented behaviours, such as passivity, task-avoidance or acting-out behaviours, have been
found to receive more misplaced or exaggerated parental control efforts (Beauchaine,
Strassberg, Kees, & Drabick, 2002; Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998; Hokoda & Fincham,
1995; Winsler, 1998). While, in "normal" dyads, mothers flexibly regulate their level of'
directiveness according to moment-to-moment progressions or regressions of the child's
independent functioning, mothers of children with emotional-behavioural problems tend to
withdraw less control over time, to rigidly engage in over-directive, intrusive, coercive and
negative control efforts, and to use less coordinated communication (Beauchaine et al,, 2002;
Brophy & Dunn, 2002; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001; Pratt, Kerig, Cowan, & Cowan, 1988; Pratt,
Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992; Winsler, 1998).
It is conceivable that motivationally and socio-emotionally vulnerable children with
non-task oriented behavioural tendencies differ from resilient children with task-oriented
behavioural tendencies as regards their histories of parental control, support of autonomy, and
emotional involvement (Skinner & Edge, 2002), There is evidence that children's avoidance
(e,g,, withdrawal, inhibition) and over-dependent (e.g., clinging) behaviours are associated
with parent control anomalies (e,g,, over-control, intrusiveness, excessive use of incentives,
unresponsiveness, non-synchrony) (Barrett & Boggiano, 1988; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993;
Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Hokoda & Fincham, 1995), some of which have also been found in
insecure adult-child attachment pattems (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Al-Yagon
& Mikulincer, 2004), whereas children's task-oriented behaviours (e.g,, exploration, curiosity,
task persistence, and preference of challenges) are associated with autonomy-supporting
parenting practices (Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993; Hokoda & Fincham, 1995) and parenting
styles providing a secure attachment base (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2004),
Dynamic systems research focusing on parents' interactions with their emotionally
mal-regulated children has demonstrated that, within such dyads, rigid pattems of interaction
tend to become stabilized and self-perpetuating (Hollenstein et al,, 2004), For example, the
more non-task oriented the child's behaviour is, the more likely the parent is to respond with
autonomy-inhibiting or motivationally and emotionally distorting control efforts, and vice
versa. Differences in parent-child scaffolding patterns may thus mirror differential
developmental histories comprising self-perpetuating cycles of poorly coordinated or well-
coordinated scaffolding interactions with concomitant emotional and motivational regulations
(see Dumas et al,, 2001; Lehtinen, Vauras, Salonen, Olkinuora, & Kinnunen, 1995; Vauras,
Salonen, Lehtinen, & Lepola, 2001),
Two important dimensions of regulatory mismatch with unfavourable socio-cognitive
developmental consequences are parental (over)directiveness and intrusiveness (Landry,
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 81

Smith, Swank, & Miller-Loncar, 2000; Egeland, Pianta, & O'Brien, 1993; Mattanah, Pratt,
Cowan, & Cowan, 2005). The level of directiveness refers to the degree to which the parent
tries to pursue her or his own achievement goals during the joint task performance instead of
shifting the responsibility to the child. Over-directiveness is a mode of scaffolding mismatch
where the parent provides too concrete/detailed directives (or too direct cueing) in relation to
the actual level of child's independent functioning. Under-directiveness refers to a mismatch
where the parent provides assistance which is too abstract (or directions which are too vague)
in relation to the child's level of independent functioning. Intrusiveness denotes a mismatch
situation where the parent's intervention (e.g., command) disrupts the child's ongoing activity
and leads to the inhibition or disorganization of the child's original activity (Baird, Haas,
McCormick, Carruth, & Turner, 1992; Berk & Spuhl, 1995; Salonen et al., 2005; Vauras et
al., 2001).
An additional set of regulatory mismatches relates to emotional and motivational aspects
of scaffolding. Mismatches in emotional other-regulation include the parent's (1) negative
responses to the child's positive expressions ("modulation of positivity"), and (2) the parent's
negative responses to the child's negative expressions ("cycle of negativity") (Dix, 1991;
Hudson & Rapee, 2001; Landy & Menna, 2001; Salonen & Vauras, 2006; Snyder et al.,
2003). Motivational regulatory mismatches comprise the parent's (1) negative responding to
the child's negative verbalized expectations (/attributions), and (2) failure to modulate the
child's negative expectations (/attributions) (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995; Salonen & Vauras,
2006). As an exploratory study with methodological emphasis, the present investigation was
principally designed to develop methodological approaches and to create hypotheses
concerning multimodal (i.e., socio-cognitive, emotional, and motivational) interpersonal
patterns in optimal and less optimal scaffolding interaction.
We set out to observe parents and their children with an extreme tendency toward task-
oriented or non-task oriented behaviour. Based on our three-part model of motivational
orientation dimensions and corresponding sets of coping strategies (Lehtinen et al., 1995;
Lepola, Salonen, Vauras, & Poskiparta, 2004; OIkinuora & Salonen, 1992; Salonen, 1987;
Salonen, 1988; Salonen, Lehtinen, & OIkinuora, 1998; Vauras et al., 2001), we aimed to focus
on children with a generalized tendency toward task-oriented vs. toward one of the two types
of non-task oriented behaviour, task-avoidance and social dependence. These three groups of
behaviour with distinctive motivational foci and approach/avoidance characteristics represent
different dispositions to cope with leaming and performance situations. According to the
model, task-oriented behaviours are guided by the child's intrinsically motivated tendency to
approach, explore and master novel or challenging aspects of the environment. They include
task- or problem-focused coping efforts, such as concentrated on-task activity, preference of
challenge, and persistence, as well as and positive task-related emotional responses (for
details, see Salonen et al., 1998). Task-avoidant behaviours addressed in the present study
represent a subset of ego-defensively oriented coping strategies and emotional responses
characterized in the model. Ego-defensive behaviours are guided by the child's extrinsically
motivated tendency to alleviate emotional tension or restore well-being. They include, e.g.,
social and task-focused avoidance behaviours, inhibition of action, substitute and subsidiary
activities, defensive responses in front of anticipated or experienced failure as well as negative
emotional expressions (for details, see Salonen et al., 1998). In the present study, the construct
task-avoidance was chosen to encompass the basic avoidance-aspects of young children's ego-
defensive behaviour. Task-avoidant behaviour was defmed as the child's tendency to avoid
working on tasks, to ignore teacher instructions, to imitate peers' non-task oriented behaviour,
and to engage in substitute activities. Social dependence - oriented behaviours &K steered by
the child's extrinsically motivated tendency to please the adult, to seek approval, and to adjust
to the adult's expectations and performance-related wishes. Dependence-type coping
behaviours are socially-focused and include a variety of efforts to seek or elicit social cues,
excessive support, and approval (for details, see Salonen et al., 1998). In the present study,
social dependence - behaviour was defmed as imitativeness, excessive help-seeking, and
emitting signs of helplessness.
82 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

The observation study was intended to address the following questions: (1) Do parent-
child dyads with task-oriented children differ from dyads with non-task-oriented children in
terms of scaffolding match v.s. mismatch? We expected that parents and children with high
task-avoidance or high social-dependence tendencies are likely to show more non-optimal
pattems (or "mismatch") in socio-cognitive and socio-emotional realms of regulation than
parents and children with task orientation; (2) Do parent-child dyads with task-oriented
children differ from dyads with non-task-oriented children in socio-cognitive, socio-emotional
and motivational regulatory behaviours? We expected that parent-child dyads with non-task
oriented children would show more directive and intrusive regulatory behaviours, more
dysfunctional emotional regulation, and more negative expectations than dyads with task-
oriented children. In addition, to illustrate the variation and contrasts in multimodal
interpersonal pattems, we carried out qualitative analyses on a couple of dyads with differing
interaction dynamics.

Method

Participants

Twenty-three parents (16 mothers and 7 fathers) and their children (16 boys and 7 girls,
mean age 7.4 years), tracked in the context of a larger longitudinal study, participated in the
present parent-child interaction study. The participants were selected from 163 children rated
by preschool and first grade teachers on task orientation, task-avoidance and social
dependence orientation. Children with differential motivational-developmental pathways,
evidenced by measurements at several points of development from preschool to grade 1, were
selected and observed in scaffolding settings with their parents. In particular, we focused on
extreme groups of children showing stabilized motivational and emotional tendencies.

Motivational orientation ratings and subgrouping

Task orientation, task-avoidance and social dependence were operationalized on the basis
of corresponding coping behaviours (Lepola, Salonen, Vauras, & Poskiparta, 2004; Salonen,
1987; Salonen, 1988; Salonen, Lehtinen, & Olkinuora, 1998). Each of the three motivational
orientations was assessed by the preschool and first grade teachers on 5-point Likert scales.
The task orientation items ((^=0.79-0.87) consisted of concentration on the task, showing
persistent effort when facing difficulties, being eager to do challenging tasks, and being
"absorbed" in the given task. The task-avoidance items (<2=0.85-0.87) addressed avoiding
working on tasks, imitating peers' non-task oriented behaviour, ignoring teacher's instructions,
and engaging in substitute activities. The social dependence items (<2=0.76-0.89) involved
thoughtless imitative behaviours, excessive help-seeking, and signs of helplessness.
Preschool teachers had rated the children's motivational orientation two times (12 months
and 6 months) before the parent-child scaffolding interaction study took place in the autumn
term when the children were in grade 1 (see Table 1). We used first grade teachers' ratings for
an additional confirmation of the children's motivational-developmental pattems. Two children
with a remarkable discrepancy between preschool and first grade teachers' ratings were
excluded.
Based on the teachers' ratings, one group of highly task-oriented and one group of non-
task oriented children were selected from the original sample of preschoolers («=163). From
these subgroups, 11 most highly task-oriented (9 boys, 2 girls) and 12 most highly non-task
oriented (7 boys, 5 girls) children were selected. The subjects selected to represent the
dominant tendency of task orientation scored in the top quartile for task orientation and in the
bottom quartiles for avoidance and social dependence. Of'the subjects selected to represent the
dominant tendency of non-task orientation, 6 scored in the top quartile for task-avoidance and
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 83

6 scored in the top quartile for social dependence. Within the high task-avoidance group
(«=6), the discrepancy between task-avoidance and task-orientation was significant over time
(p=.005), whereas within the social dependence group («=6) the discrepancy between social
dependence and task orientation was significant (p=.0\2) in preschool spring ratings but not
anymore at the first grade. However, it must be noted that all 12 non-task oriented subjects
scored in the bottom quartile for task orientation, and this group differed highly significantly
(p<.OOl) from task-oriented group at all measurement points. Table 1 gives an overview of the
motivational-developmental background of the two motivational extreme groups.

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and effect sizes of motivational-developmental patterns for task-
oriented and non-task-oriented groups from preschool to grade 1
Task-oriented Non-task oriented
children (TO) children (NTO)

Motivational orientations M(SD) M(SD) F(1,2I)

Preschool (November)
Task orientation 4.45 (0.69) 2.40 (0.62) 56.75*** .73
Task-avoidance orientation 1.61 (0.87) 3.13(0.83) 18.41*** .47
Social dependence orientation 1.82(0.61) 3.14(1.16) 11.33** .35
Preschool (April)
Task orientation 4.50 (0.72) 2.31 (0.57) 65.87*** .76
Task-avoidance orientation 1.68(0.95) 2.83(1.00) 7.96** .28
Social dependence orientation 1.62(0.99) 3.21 (0.98) 14.84*** .41
Grade 1 (November)
Task orientation 4.02 (0.60) 2.50 (0.56) 39.69*** .65
Task-avoidance orientation 1.58(0.57) 2.89 (0.68) 24.67*** .54
Social dependence orientation 1.75(0.69) 3.00 (0.89) 14.08** .40
Note. •**=p<.001; **=p<.01.

Observation procedure

The scaffolding interaction of each parent-child dyad was video-recorded with a

VHS-camera installed behind a one-way window covering one wall of the observation room.
The experimenter encouraged dyads to behave as if they were doing tasks at home. On arrival
in the observation room, each parent was told that she or he was free to help or to instruct his
or her child during hobby-type constmction tasks if necessary. Dyads were told that they were
free to manipulate the model if they wished, but not to remove pieces from it. No time limits
were given.

Task materials

To stimulate parental scaffolding during the child's task performance, we designed a

picture-arrangement task and three LEGO®-construction tasks with increasing difficulty. The
picture arrangement tasks were adapted from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III
(1991). The tasks required arranging comic strip pictures out of logical-temporal sequence
into a logically coherent story. A total of four arrangement tasks with increasing difficulty
were given (WISC-R III, Picture arrangement: V, VII, IX, and XIII).
The three 'LEGO®-construction tasks were administered in the following order: (1) 14-piece
tower-task, (2) 21-piece bridge task and (3) 31-piece car task. The subjects were given 110
LEGO® bricks involving 23 different (in size/colour) pieces (66 bricks were needed for the
84 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

three tasks, 44 bricks were distraction pieces). The subjects were instructed to build an exact
copy of a three-dimensional LEGO®-figure with the aid of a pre-built model. To minimize the
bias possibly brought about by the dyads' differential socio-linguistic and educational
backgrounds, we selected cartoon strip-type picture arrangement and brick construction tasks
involving familiar, everyday materials and common problem-solving routines. Two children
out of 23 were not given the last car-building task, since it was interpreted to be far too
difficult on the basis of previous attempts and emotional reactions (with these two children,
the bridge task was used for the scaffolding analyses).

Measures of the parent-child scaffolding interactions

To analyze the quality of parent-child scaffolding interaction, both global ratings and
micro-analytic coding of child-parent behaviours were conducted.

Global ratings for parental socio-cognitive and socio-emotional regulation. Two

research assistants, who were blind to the grouping and the hypothesis of the study, rated
independently the videotaped interactions on two 5-point scales. The raters were instructed to
assess the grade of the socio-cognitive and socio-emotional scaffolding match v.s. mismatch
according to predefmed descriptions of the parents' ability to adjust adequately to the relevant
changes of the child's independent functioning and emotional responses. As regards the socio-
cognitive ratings, the raters were instructed to relate the average level of the child's independent
functioning, within a particular sequence, to the average level of parent directiveness.
The scale for socio-cognitive regulation varied from very poor regulation (i.e., the
parent's strong over-directiveness or under-directiveness in relation to the child's autonomous
functioning or the parent's asynchronous responding) to very good regulation (i.e., the
parent's guidance varying optimally in relation to the levels of the child's independent
flinctioning). Average socio-cognitive regulation was defmed as the parent's slightly over-
directive or under-directive behaviour in relation to the child's independent functioning. The
scale for socio-emotional regulation varied from very poor regulation (i.e., the parent's
negative responses to the child's positive, neutral or negative responses) to very good
regulation (i.e., the parent's positive responses to the child's negative or positive responses, or
the parent's neutral responses to the child's neutral responses). Average socio-emotional
regulation was defmed as the parent's neutral responses to the child's positive or negative
responses or lack of responses to the child's positive or negative responses.
The ratings were based on the first 5 minutes of the three subtask (i.e., pictures, bridge,
and car) performances. Inter-rater reliability assessments (for LEGO® tasks), resulted in the
following correlations: r=.68 for the socio-cognitive domain) and r=.75 for the socio-emotional
domain. We constructed two 5-point rating scales to assess the overall quality of socio-
cognitive and socio-emotional regulation during an extended period of scaffolding interaction.
On each scale, 1 indicated very poor parental regulation with an extensive mismatch and 5
indicated very good parental regulation with an optimal match.

Micro-analytic coding of interactions. Both the child's and the parent's verbal and non-
verbal behaviours were transcribed from videotapes by a researcher blind to the subjects'
group membership. The car construction task was used in this analysis. A total of 768
episodes were analyzed (A/=33.39, SD=12.58). All the episodes were distributed equally
across task-oriented (M=32.41, 5'D=12.51) and non-task oriented (M=34.45, .SD=13.00)
groups. The mean time to completion for the task oriented group was 17.32 min (5£)=3.73
min, range=13.5 min) and for the non-task oriented group 17.58 min (5^=3.82 min,
range=11.5 min). This suggests that groups did not differ in cognitive performance, either.
The first 5 minutes of the dyads' behaviour on this task were transcribed and analyzed because
this initial phase of the complex car construction task was considered to comprise a sufficient
number of obstacles to stimulate scaffolding responses. Adapting the procedure of Pratt et al.
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 85

(1988, p. 834), parent intervention - child response sequences were identified in the behaviour
stream. An identifiable response by the child with signs of non-comprehension (e.g., request
for help, pause of activity with a questioning look, behavioural sign of experienced difficulty
or uncertainty) marked the end of the preceding episode and the beginning of a new one. Only
changes consisting of a unitary behaviour with the duration of 3 seconds or more were coded
as a new episode. The behavioural categories used in coding were partly based on
classifications applied in previous research into scaffolding (Berk & Spuhl, 1995; Pratt et al.,
1988). An overall scheme ofthe behavioural categories and codes used in the micro-analysis
is given in Figure 1.

Independent Independent activity Emotional response Verbalized expectation

activity ends / Request of help
-1-
+
Child 1 1 1 1 1

Parent 1 1 1 1
-/+/0 -/+/0
1 1
-/+/0 -I+IQ
Intrusiveness: Directiveness: Emotional response/ Verbalized expectation
l=Low
Modulation:
l=Very Low
2=High 2=Low Dysfunctional (mismatch):
3= High
4=Very High
(C+-> PO)
Functional (match):
(C - -> P +) (C+ -^ P+)
(C--^PO)
Figure 1. A scheme for the analysis of the co-ordinations of child and parent socio-cognitive
and socio-emotional behaviours
Note. C=Child, P=Parent, +=positive, -=negative 0=no response.

Intrusiveness refers to the parent's intrusive commands and takeovers "breaking in" on
the child's on-going task-focused activity. Intrusive parent behaviour was coded at one ofthe
following two levels.
/ Low\ The parent intervention disturbs the child's activity moderately, but the child is
able to continue after a moment's slight disorientation; for example: (while the child is
in the process of selecting appropriate pieces, the mother suddenly points at an
arbitrary point ofthe model) "Yeah but you still need something extra" (the child looks
at the mother for a while, but then continues to pick up pieces);
2 High: The parent intervention strongly interferes with the child's on-going task-
focused activity and the child stops his or her activity and complies with the parent
prompt; for example: (while the child is thoughtfully looking at the configuration, the
mother suddenly picks the construction from the child's hand and turns it upside down)
'Wow what (sighing, in a disparaging tone of voice)... of course it goes this way, other-
wise you can 'tget any car out of it" (the child becomes passive and just stares gloomily).

Directiveness refers to the degree of control and restriction ofthe parent's guidance given
in response to the child's verbal request or sign of uncertainty. Parent directiveness was coded
at one ofthe following four levels.
I Very Low: Strategic directions for the structuring of the situation or verbal hints of
very general nature; for example: "And the next one, where does that go?... it doesn 't
quite fit in the middle";
86 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

2 Low. Strategic directions and hints with more specified descriptions of the required
activity, for example: "What about beginning with these ones (picks up a couple of
bricks and puts them near by the model)... are these the right size?";
3 High: Detailed/step-by-step directions for (or modelling of) the required activity, for
example: "Look here, you have to put those black ones (points) here (points), on this
side";
4 Very High: Doing the task or part of it on behalf of the child; for example: (the child is
trying to make a strong joint, but gives it up as the joint comes out unsteady. The
parent grabs the construction and fixes it for the child) "see, no need (to pressj that
much".

Socio-emotional responses and their dyadic co-ordinations. Positive (+) and negative (-)
emotional expressions (verbal or nonverbal) were coded for the child (C) and for the parent
(P) (see Figure 1). If the parent's and the child's emotional expressions were coordinated, i.e.,
shown concurrently or in an immediate sequence, they were coded as (1) "cycle of positivity"
(C+^P+), (2) "modulation of child negativity" (C—»P+), (3) "cycle of negativity" (C—»P-),
and (4) "modulation of child positivity" (C+^P-). While the first two of these co-ordinations
represent functional regulation (match), the latter ones represent dysflinctional socio-emotional
regulation (mismatch). Furthermore, the regulation can be seen as (mildly) dysfunctional if the
child's positivity does not release any parental emotional response (C+-»0). If the child's
negativity does not induce any emotional response in the parent (C—'•O), the regulation can be
seen as functional.

Expectations. Verbalizations of expectations/attributions anticipating success (+) or

failure (-) were coded for the child (e.g., "I'm sure I can do this one", "This is not right") and
for the parent (e.g., "/ am sure you can do it", "This is something we maybe can't do").
The reliability assessment for the microanalyses was based on 13% (102/768) of the
episodes being coded by a second rater. The inter-rater correlations were: r=.S4 for parent
directiveness, r=.67 for parent intrusiveness, ;=.8O for child emotional responses, and r=.73
for parent emotional responses. To assess the reliability for the coding of parent and child
behaviour, kappas (Cohen, 1960) were calculated, being .60 for directiveness, .58 for
intrusiveness, .72 for child emotion responses, and .70 for parent emotion responses. The
disagreements were resolved in discussion.

Results

Group differences in parents' rated quality of regulation

Table 2 shows the mean differences in the quality of socio-cognitive and socio-emotional
regulation between task oriented and non-task oriented groups in each sub-task. A 2x3
(Motivation group x Task) ANOVA with task as a repeated measure variable was performed
for socio-cognitive and socio-emotional regulation. No differences were found between the
motivation groups in the domain of socio-cognitive regulation. Two-way ANOVA for socio-
emotional regulation revealed a significant main effect of motivation group, F(l,21)=5.31,
p<0.05 and task setting, /='(1,31)=3.64, ;7<0.05. The results indicated that the parents of task-
oriented subjects adjusted their responses to meet the children's emotional responses more
optimally than the parents of non-task oriented children. A post hoc analysis indicated that the
groups differed in the final car construction task in favour of the parents of the task-oriented
group.
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 87

Table 2
The quality of parents' socio-cognitive and socio-emotional regulation as a function of
motivation group and task setting
TO-group(n=ll) NTO-group(n=12)

Scaffolding interaction M(SD) M(SD) ANOVAU

Socio-cognitive regulation
Task 1 4.00 (1.41) 3.42 (1.73) Group F(l,21)=0.48,p=/!i
Task 2 3.55 (1.44) 3.25 (1.65) Task setting F(l,2l)=l.l5,p=ns
Task 3 3.27 (1.62) 3.00 (1.21) Group X Task F(l,2\)=0.\6,p=ns
Socio-emotional regulation
Task 1 4.72 (0,90) 4.00 (1.41) Group F(l,21)=5.31,p<0.05
Task 2 4.63 (0.67) 3.92 (1.31) Task setting f(l,21)=3.64,/?<0.05
Task 3 4.18a (0.87) 3.25b (1.14) Group X Task F(\,2\)=0,\\,p=ns
Note. ••*=p<.001, **=p<.01. Task l=picture arrangement; Task 2=Lego-bridge building; Task 3=Lego-car building.
Group means with different subscripts (a,b) are statistically different at level of p<0.05 (Two-tailed /-test). #Task
setting as a repeated measure variable.

Group differences in observed scaffolding interactions (micro-analyses)

To control for variability in the number of episodes coded in child-parent micro-analyses,

we converted all codes to proportions (=interaction code/total number of episodes in each
dyad). Firstly, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were computed to examine
motivation group differences on parent-child interaction codes. Secondly, to assess the
predicted interaction of the motivation group and the quality of parental behaviours, four two-
way ANOVAs were computed with the following variables as within-subject factor:
intrusiveness (low vs. high), directiveness (low vs. high), parental emotions (positive vs.
negative) and parental socio-emotional regulation (cycle of positivity vs, cycle of negativity).
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations and F-tests for group differences on micro-
analyses. The results showed that the parents with task-oriented children did not differ either in
the degree of intrusive or directive behaviours from the parents of non-task oriented children.
Only a few parental expectations were observed and no differences were found between the
groups. However, ANOVA for the parents' emotional behaviour revealed that the parents of
task oriented children expressed significantly more positive emotions than the parents of non-
task oriented children. Due to the unequal variances of the task- and non-task-oriented groups,
the Brown-Forsythe robust test was also computed, which confirmed the difference found in
positive emotions in favour of the parents of task-oriented children. In addition, a two-way
ANOVA revealed a significant interaction of the motivation group and the quality of parental
emotional expressions, F(l,21)=10.47,/7<0.01, suggesting that the parents of task-oriented
children differed from the parents of non-task oriented children in affect. In fact, all the four
parents who most frequently displayed negative emotions belonged to the non-task oriented
child-parent group.
As Table 3 shows, no motivational group main effect was found for codes of parent-child
emotional regulation. However, a two-way ANOVA for the dynamics of emotional regulation
by motivation groups revealed a significant interaction, F(l,21)=4.68,/7<O.O5. This finding
indicates that the parents of task-oriented children employed a more favourable emotional
regulation than the parents of non-task oriented children in the LEGO®-constructing task. The
analysis of the children's motivational behaviours showed that the motivation groups differed
with regard to negative expectations, that is, the non-task oriented children expressed all the
negative child expectations coded in microanalyses.
 p. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

Table 3
Means and standard deviations of codes for parents' intervention, emotional and motivational
behaviours, and children's emotional behaviours in LEGO®-car-building task
Motivation groups
TO NTO
Behavioural codes M SD M SD F(\,2\) P
Parental behaviours
Intrusiveness
Low 0.20 0.14 0.15 0.06 1.13 ns
High 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 2.52 ns
Directiveness
Very low 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.55 ns
Low 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.55 ns
High 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.14 1.50 ns
Very high 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 2.49 ns
Positive emotional expressions 0.19 0.13 0.09 0.07 6.19 .02
Negative emotional expression 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 2.00 ns
Positive expectations 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.23 ns
Negative expectations 0 0 0.01 0.01 3.16 ns
Parental socio-emotional regulation
Cycle of positivity (C+^P+) 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 3.79 ns
Modulation of positivity C+-»P—) 0 0 0.003 0.01 1.96 ns
Cycle of negativity (C—•P-) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.79 ns
Modulation of negativity C—•P+) 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.30 ns
Children's behaviours
Positive emotional expression 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.08 1.51 ns
Negative emotional expression 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.03 ns
Positive expectations 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 ns
Negative expectations 0 0 0.04 0.05 7.32 .01
Note. TO=Task-Oriented group, NTO=Non-Task Oriented group, C=Child, P=Parent, +=positive emotional expression/
response, ^=negative emotional expression/response.

Idiographic analyses

Idiographic analyses were carried out to illustrate differences in the patterning and
cumulation of dyadic events. We selected three dyads showing marked variation and contrasts
in scaffolding and socio-emotional modulation pattems (see Table 4).
The highest rate of parent intrusiveness and directiveness within the total sample was
observed in the dyadic interactions involving Matti and Kalle, two boys, who were rated by
their teachers as having a very low task orientation and a high level of social dependence. Out
of the two, it was Matti who received most often (6 times) strongly intrusive (level 2)
interventions. He also received by far the most frequent concrete level directives (the total
number of directives was 22 at levels 2, 3, and 4). Apart from the fact that the socio-cognitive
scaffolding regulation can be characterized as highly mismatched in interactions with Matti and
his parent, the socio-emotional other-regulation indicated moderate levels of parental positive
modulation and reinforcement, and only very slight mismatch. However, in interactions
involving Kalle and his parent, a high total rate of parent intrusiveness was observed, but it
represented low level intrusiveness in most instances (12). Total parental directiveness was also
relatively high, but the distribution suggests probably a somewhat less dysflinctional pattem of
other-regulation than observed with Matti. As regards emotional other-regulation, a very strong
mismatch was indicated by the high rate (7) of mutual cycles of negativity. Only a few
instances of positive modulation and positive reinforcement were found.
In contrast to the two cases described above, the case of Maija (rated as task oriented)
showed a very low total rate of parent intrusiveness, and all the few instances (3) represented
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 89

moderate (level 1) intrusiveness. Maija received only one (1) parental directive, and it was a
strategic one. It is important to note that, over the total performance process, Maija's problem-
solving activity was not particularly fluent or obstacle-free; she encountered approximately the
same number of obstacles as the other children. This means that the mother decided not to give
directives in dozens of occasions where the child showed some signs of uncertainty. Yet such a
minimalist dosing (or almost total withdrawal) of assistance seemed to be well-balanced with
regard to the child's level of independent functioning, because the child could continue and even
reorganize her independent efforts in all those occasions. During the task, Maija's mother offered
her help a couple of times: "You can ask me for help anytime you want, do you want to get help
now?" - as if the mother had known that her daughter can perform the task with a minimal
extemal assistance but needs some emotional modulation and reinforcement when faced with
difficulty. Maybe the general successfulness of the above scaffolding pattem was based on the
optimized emotional-motivational balance that was indicated by the non-existence of parental
negativity and by the high rate of positive reinforcement (10), and modulation of negativity (6).

Table 4
Case examples: Parental scaffolding with motivationally extreme subjects
Socio-Emotional Modulation (/)
Intrusiveness(/) Directiveness (/) Dysfunctional Functional
1 2 1 2 3 4 -- +- +0 -0 -+ ++
Matti (NTO) 1 1 6 4 5 1 1 6 1 1 8 33 5
Kalle (NTO) 12 2 5 9 1 1 7 1 1 3 1 3
Maija (TO) 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 10

Note. TO=Task Oriented; NTO=Non-task oriented; Intrusiveness l=Low, 2=High; Direetiveness l=Very Low, 2=Low,
3=High, 4=Very High; -=Negative emotional expression/response; +=Positive emotional expression/response;
0=No (parental) emotional response.

Discussion

In this study, we attempted to conceptualize and explore the multimodal interaction

pattems linked to functional and dysfunctional scaffolding processes. The following research
questions were addressed regarding group-level differences: (1) Do parent-child dyads with
task-oriented children differ from dyads with non-task-oriented children in terms of
scaffolding match vs. mismatch? (2) Do the parents with task-oriented children differ from the
parents with non-task-oriented children in socio-cognitive, socio-emotional and motivational
regulatory behaviours?
With respect to the first question, global ratings revealed no differences between groups
as regards socio-cognitive scaffolding (mis)match. However, a between-group difference was
found in global ratings for socio-emotional regulation. When compared to the parents with
non-task oriented children, the parents with task-oriented children adjusted their socio-
emotional responses more optimally to their children's emotional expressions. Since the task-
oriented parent-child dyads outperformed the non-task oriented dyads particularly in the most
challenging car-construction task, it is conceivable that socio-emotional regulation differences
become more salient in conjunction with the growing task difficulty.
With respect to the second question, the only between-group difference revealed by the
behavioural micro-analyses was that the parents of the task oriented children emitted more
positive emotional signals than the parents of the non-task oriented children. This finding,
together with the results from global ratings, suggests that parents may have more beneficial
socio-emotional scaffolding interactions with task-oriented children than with non-task oriented
children. Parental positive emotional support has been found to be related to the increases in
children's specific cognitive abilities and self-regulatory skills, but the causal role of parental
90 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

emotional support is far from clear (see Diaz, Neal, & Vachio, 1991; Low, 2003). Low's (2003)
discussion of parental effects in promoting the emergence of self-regulatory competency suggests
that one has to consider not only the unique relationships of parental emotional support, but also
more complex bidirectional parent-child interactions comprising, e.g., parental affect and
behaviour. On the other hand. Low's (2003) study on mothers and children with developmental
delays and Kopecky's (2004) study on mothers scaffolding maltreated children, failed to confirm
the unique effect of parental intrusiveness or directiveness on the child's actual behaviour. Taken
together this research on high-risk dyads underscores the importance of considering situational
factors (e.g., the nature of tasks), multimodal interactions, and bidirectional effects in studying
the detrimental role of parental negative affectivity, intrusiveness or directiveness in predicting
dyadic behaviour and child outcomes (Kopecky, 2004; Low, 2003).
There are some apparent methodological reasons for the weak group-level effects in this
exploratory study. The sample size was rather small and relatively brief samples of behaviours
were coded. In addition, the reliabilities for some of the ratings and micro-analytic codes were
only modest. Other conceivably attenuating factors could be the play- or hobby-like nature of
the tasks, the lack of "academic-type" socio-cognitive constraints and demands, and the "free-
floating" helper role given to the parent. If the tasks and social contexts had been more
"academic" with more explicit demands and pressures as well as future incentives (such as in
typical homework assistance situations), more differentiated and culminating socio-emotional
and guidance pattems might have been detected. The task used in microanalyses might be
considered as favouring boys. However, the distributions of boys and girls in task-oriented
and non-task oriented groups do not suggest a confounding gender bias effect.
We described the qualitative characteristics scaffolding pattems in three child-parent dyads.
Matti (rated as non-task oriented) was objected not only to very high rates of (partly rude)
parental intrusiveness, but also to a very high and concrete-level directiveness. The domain of
emotional other-regulation also indicated some dysfunction, but was more well-balanced. Kalle
(rated as non-task oriented) received not only high rates of parental intrusiveness, but was also
objected to massive aversive emotional other-regulation. Maija (rated as task oriented) not only
received a high degree of autonomy-promoting socio-cognitive scaffolding but also voluminous
positive emotional modulation, reinforcement, and positive parental expectations. Even though
idiographic analyses do not allow generalizations, the three "cases" illustrate the variation and
contrasts found in interpersonal multimodal pattems. The somewhat differing repeated pattems
found in the two dysfunctional dyads suggest that the maladaptive condition might be based on
differential constellations of socio-cognitive, emotional and motivational (mis)match possibly
contributing to diverging developmental trajectories.
Our study shows promise for micro-analytic studies on parental scaffolding which are
based on the dynamic systems (Granic & Hollenstein, 2003) and the interpersonal relational
(Horowitz, 1996) views of dyadic interaction. We propose that children's more or less self-
regulated behaviour in scaffolding situations should be studied within a research design
capable of focusing on parallel socio-cognitive, emotional and motivational interpersonal co-
ordinations and their situational dynamics and developmental backgrounds. However, it would
be important to capture the pattems of dyadic parent-child interactions over a longer time span
and in variable situations. Repeated interpersonal patterns in micro-genetic settings can
powerflilly reveal invariance that reflects long-term developmental histories of dyads - and
also the dispositions of their individual participants.

References

Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Al-Yagon, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Soeioemotional and academic adjustment among children with learning
disorders: The mediational role of attaehment-based factors. Journal of Special Education, 38, 111-123.
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 91

Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a child's
mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology. 40, 965-978.

Baird, S., Haas, L., McCormick, K., Carruth, C , & Turner, K. (1992). Approaching an objective system for observation
and measurement: Infant-parent social interaetion code. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 12. 544-571.

Baker, L., Sonnenschein, S., & Gilat, M. (1996). Mothers' sensitivity to the competencies of their preschoolers on
concept-learning task. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. II, 405-424.

Barrett, M., & Boggiano, A.K. (1988). Fostering extrinsic orientations: Use of reward strategies to motivate children.
Journal of Soeial and Clinical Psychology. 6. 293-309.

Beauchaine, T.P., Strassberg, Z., Kees, M.R., & Drabick, D.A. (2002). Cognitive response repertoires to child
noncompliance by mothers of aggressive hoys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 30, 89-101.

Berk, L.E., & Spuhl, S.T. (1995). Maternal interaction, private speech, and task performance in preschool children.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 10. 145-169.

Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who leam slowly.
Journal of Learning Disabilities. 31, 365-369.

Brophy, M., & Dunn, J. (2002). What did mummy say? Dyadic interactions between young "hard to manage" children
and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 30, 103-112.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Beck, R. (1999). Matemal scaffolding and children's narrative retelling of a movie story. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly. 14. 409-434.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20, 37-46.

Conner, D.B., & Cross, D.R. (2003). Longitudinal analysis ofthe presence, efficacy and stability of matemal scaffolding
during informal problem-solving interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 21, 315-334.

Diaz, R.M., Neal, C.J., & Vachio, A. (1991). Matemal teaching in the zone of proximal development: A comparison of
low- and high-risk dyads. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 37. 83-107.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin.
110,2-25.
Dumas, J.E., & LaFreniere, P.J. (1993). Mother-child relationships as sources of support or stress: A comparison of
competent, average, aggressive, and anxious dyads. Child Development. 64, 1732-1754.

Dumas, J.E., Lemay, P., & Dauwalder, J.- P. (2001). Dynamic analyses of mother-child interactions in functional and
dysfunctional dyads: A synergetic approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 29, 317-329.

Egeland, B., Pianta, R., & O'Brien, M.A. (1993). Matemal intrusiveness in infancy and child maladaptation in early
school years. Development and Psychopathology. 5, 359-370.

Fagot, B.L, & Gauvain, M. (1997). Mother-child problem solving: Continuity through the early childhood years.
Developmental Psychology. 33. 480-488.

Fidalgo, Z., & Pereira, F. (2005). Socio-cultural differences and the adjustment of mothers' speech to their children's
cognitive and language comprehension skills. Learning and Instruction. 15, 1-21.

Freund, L. (1990). Matemal regulation of children's problem-solving behavior and its impact on children's performan-
ce. Child Development. 61, 113-126.

Gauvain, M., & DeMent, T. (1991). The role of shared social history in parent-child cognitive activity. Quarterly
Newsletter ofthe Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. 13, 58-66.

Ginsburg, G.S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family faetors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation
and academic performance. Child Development. 64, 1461-1474.

Gonzalez, M.-M. (1996). Tasks and activities. A parent-child interaetion analysis. Learning and Instruction. 6, 287-306.

Goodman, J.F., & Linn, M.I. (2003). "Maladaptive" Behaviours in the young child with intellectual disabilities: A
reconsideration. International Journal of Disability. Development and Education. 50. 137-148.

Granic, I., & Dishion, T.J. (2003). Deviant talk in adolescent friendships: A step toward measuring a pathogenic
attractor process. Social Development. 12, 314-334.
92 P, SALONEN, J, LEPOLA, & M, VAURAS

Granic, I,, & Hollenstein, T, (2003), Dynamic systems methods for models of developmental psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 15, 641-669.

Granic, I,, & Lamey, A,V, (2002), Combining dynamic systems and multivariate analyses to compare the mother-child
interactions of externalizing subtypes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 3, 265-283,

Granic, I,, Hollenstein, T,, Dishion, T,J,, & Patterson, G,R, (2003). Longitudinal analysis of flexibility and
reorganization in early adolescence: A dynamic systems study of family interactions. Developmental Psychology,
59,606-617.

Grolnick, W.S,, Gurland, S,T,, DeCourcey, W,, & Jacob, K, (2002), Antecedents and consequences of mothers' autonomy
support: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 38, 143-155,

Harrist, A,W,, & Waugh, R.M. (2002), Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children's development.
Developmental Review, 22, 555-592,

Hokoda, A,, & Fincham, F.D. (1995), Origins of children's helpless and mastery achievement pattems in the family,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 375-385,

Hollenstein, T,, Granic, I,, Stoolmiller, M., & Snyder, J, (2004), Rigidity in parent-child interactions and the
development of externalizing and internalizing behavior in early childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 32, 595-607.

Horowitz, L.M. (1996). The study of interpersonal problems: A Leary legacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66.
283-300,

Hubbs-Tait, L,, McDonald-Culp, A., Culp, R.E., & Miller, C,E, (2002), Relation of maternal cognitive stimulation,
emotional support, and intrusive behaviour during head start to children's kindergarten cognitive abilities. Child
Development, 73, 110-131,

Hudson, J.L., & Rapee, R.M. (2001), Parent-child interactions and anxiety disorders: An observational study. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 39, 1411-1427.

Hustedt, J.T., & Raver, C,C, (2002). Scaffolding in low-income mother-child dyads: Relations with joint attention and
dyadic reciprocity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 113-119.

Isabella, R.A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother attachment. Child
Development, 62, 373-384.

Junttila, N., Vauras, M., & Laakkonen, E, (2006, this issue). The role of parenting self-efficacy in children's social and
academic behaviour. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

Kopecky, H, (2004), Scaffolding practices of maltreating and nonmaltreating mothers and their relation to child
outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester.

Landry, S.H., Smith, K.E., Swank, P,R., & Miller-Loncar, C.L. (2000). Early maternal and child influences on children's
later independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Development, 71, 358-375.

Landy, S., & Menna, R. (2001). Play between aggressive young children and their mothers. Clinical Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 6, 223-239,

Lehtinen, E,, Vauras, M,, Salonen, P,, Olkinuora, E,, & Kinnunen, R. (1995). Long-term development of leaming activity:
Motivational, cognitive, and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 21-35,

Lepola, J., Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2004) Understanding the development of subnormal performance
in children from a motivational-interactionist perspective. In H. Switzky (Ed.), International Review of Research
in Mental Retardation: Personality and motivational systems in mental retardation (vol. 28, pp. 145-189). San
Diego: Elsevier Academic Press,

Lepper, M.R, (1981), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in children: Detrimental effects of superfluous social controls.
In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Aspects ofthe development of competence: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology
(vol. 14, pp. 155-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lewis, M,D. (2004). Trouble ahead: Predicting antisocial trajectories with dynamic systems concepts and methods.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32,665-611.

Low, C M . (2003), Self-regulation in children with and without developmental delays: Roles of cognition, temperament
and parenting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Maccoby, E.E. (1992), The role of parents in the socialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017,
 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 93

Mattanah, J.F., Pratt, M.W., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C. (2005). Authoritative parenting, parental scaffolding of long-
division tnathematics, and children's academic competence in fourth grade. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology. 26,85-106.

Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Neitzel, C , & Stright, A.D. (2003). Mothers' scaffolding of children's problem solving: Establishing a foundation of
academic self-regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 147-159.

O'Connor, T.G. (2002). Annotation: The effects of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications.
Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43, 555-572

OIkinuora, E., & Salonen, P. (1992). Adaptation, motivational orientation, and cognition in a subnormally-performing
child: A systemic perspective for training. In B. Wong (Ed.), Intervention research in learning disabilities: An
international perspective (pp. 190-213). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pacifici, C , & Bearison, D.J. (1991). Development of children's self-regulations in idealized and mother-child
interactions. Cognitive Development, 6, 261-277.

Plumert, J.M., & Nichols-Whitehead, P. (1996). Parental scaffolding of young children's spatial communication.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 523-532.

Pomerantz, E.M., & Eaton, M.M. (2001). Matemal intrusive support in academic context: Transactional socialization
s. Developmental Psychology, 37, 174-186.

Pratt, M.W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M. (1992). The mathematical parent: Parental scaffolding,
parenting style, and learning outcomes in long-division mathematics homework. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 13, 17-34.

Pratt, M.W., Kerig, P., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (1988). Mothers and fathers teaching 3-year-olds: Authoritative
parenting and adult scaffolding of young children's leaming. Developmental Psychology, 24, 832-839.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Developmental and contextual analysis of continuity. Human Development, 32, 204-209.

Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday
cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Salonen, P. (1987). /) category system for children's coping strategies. Unpublished manuscript. Centre for Leaming
Research. University of Turku.

Salonen, P. (1988). Leaming disabled children's situational orientations and coping strategies. Nordisk Pedagogik, 8,
70-75.

Salonen, P., & Vauras, M. (2006). Von der Fremdregulation zur Selbstregulation: Die Rolle von sozialen Makrostrukturen
in der Interaktion zwischen Lehrenden und Lemenden [From other-regulation to self-regulation: The role of social
macro-stmctures in teacher-learner interaction]. In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Fuglister, K. Reusser, & H. Wyss (Eds.),
Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage: Von Hans Aebli 's kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen
Lehr- und Lernforschung [Didactics based on psychological research: From Hans Aebli's cognitive-psychological
didactics to modem research on teaching and leaming] (pp. 207-217). Bem: h.e.p. Verlag.

Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & OIkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations and beyond: The development of motivation and
leaming in a classroom context. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the
classroom (vol. 7, pp. 111-150). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction - What can it tell us about metacognition and co-
regulation in leaming. European Psychologist, 10, 199-208.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Iiskala, T. (2004, September/October) Metacognitive, motivational and affective co-
regulation in collaborative leaming settings: A microgenetic analysis of interpersonal pattems. Paper presented in
the symposium M. Vauras (Chair) Motivation, affect and self-regulation. The 9th Intemational Conference on
Motivation, Lisbon, Portugal.

Sameroff, A., & MacKenzie, M. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The
limits ofthe possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613- 640.

Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Parenting, motivation, and the development of children's coping. Nebraska Symposium
in Motivation, 48, 77-143.
94 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

Smith, L.B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7, 343-348.

Snyder, J., Stoolmiller, M., Wilson, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2003). Child anger regulation, parental responses to
children's anger displays, and early child antisocial behavior. Social Development. 12, 335-360.

Spinrad, T.L., Stifter, C.A., Donelan-McCall, N., & Turner, L. (2004). Mothers' regulation strategies in response to
toddlers' affect: Links to later emotion self-regulation. Social Development. 13,40-55.

Stone, CA. (1998). The metaphor of seaffolding: Its utility for the field of leaming disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 31, 344-364.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L.B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge,
MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Lepola, J. (2001). Long-term development of motivation and cognition in family
and school contexts. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and
methodological implications (pp. 295-315). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.

Vermunt, J.D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between teaching and leaming. Learning and Instruction.
9. 257-280.

Wakschlag, L.S., & Hans, S.L. (1999). Relation of matemal responsiveness during infancy to the development of behavior
problems in high-risk youth. Developmental Psychology. 35, 569-579.

Winsler, A. (1998). Parent-child interaction and private speech in boys with ADHD. Applied Developmental Science. 2,
17-39.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 17. 89-100.

Dans la presente etude exploratoire, nous avons conceptualise et

examine des processus regulateurs sociocognitifs, emotionnels et
motivationnels intervenant dans I 'etayage interactionniste parent-enfant
avec ou sans la motivation intrinseque envers la tdche. Sur la base des
approches de systemes dynamiques et des resultats de recherches
anterieures, nous avons postule que I'etayage parental chez les enfants
avec la motivation envers la tdche a forme des modeles interactionnistes
multidimensionnels dijferant de ceux sans la motivation envers la tdche.
Ces modeles differents se seraient stabilises lors d'episodes repetes
d'etayage parental. Nous avons emis I'hypothese que les parents qui ont
des enfants sans la motivation envers la tdche auraient plus de modeles
non optimaux en situation d 'etayage liee aux processus regulateurs
sociocognitifs, emotionnels et motivationnels, en comparaison aux
situations dyadiques parent-enfant avec la motivation envers la tdche.
Notre corpus consistait en 11 enfants avec la motivation et 12 enfants
sans la motivation envers la tdche (ces derniers extremement evasifs ou
socialement dependants) dges de sept ans et en leurs parents. Dans
I'experimentation, il s'agissait de leur proposer des tdches d'agencement
d'images et d'unjeu de construction. La qualite de la regulation de
I'interaction de tutelle parent-enfant a ete mesuree par une echelle
d'evaluation globale et par une etude microanalytique centree sur des
situations de coordination dyadiques (i.e., I'intrusion parentale, I'attitude
directive, la modulation emotionnelle et les attentes). II ressort des
analyses, d I 'echelle globale et microanalytique, que I 'hypothese des
differences au niveau des groupes s 'avere juste en ce qui concerne la
situation de regulation emotionnelle mais pas celle de regulation
sociocognitive et motivationnelle.

Key words: Multimodal regulation, Parent-child dyads, Scaffolding.

 PARENT-CHILD SCAFFOLDING INTERACTION 95

Received: November 2005

Revision received: August 2006

Pekka Salonen. Department of Teacher Education and Centre for Leaming Research, University of
Turku, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Current theme of research:

Motivational and emotional processes and social interaction pattems in classroom instruction, small group, and parental
guidance settings.

Most relevant publications in the field ofPsychology of Education:

Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E., & Kinnunen, R. (1995). Long-term development of leaming activity:
Motivational, cognitive, and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 21-35.

Lepola, J., Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2004). Understanding the development of subnormal performance
in children from a motivational-interactionist perspective. In H. Switzky (Ed.), International Review of Research
in Mental Retardation, Vol. 28: Personality and motivational systems in mental retardation (pp. 145-189). San
Diego: Elsevier Aeademic Press.

Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Olkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations and beyond: The development of motivation and
leaming in a classroom context. In J. Brophy (Ed.) Advances in research on teaching. Vol. 7: Expectations in the
classroom (pp. 111-150). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction: What can it tell us about metacognition and
corQ^u\at'\on in \c?iming? European Psychologist, JO, 199-208.

Janne Lepola. Department of Education, University of Turku, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland. E-mail: jan-
[email protected]

Current theme of research:

The role of motivation in word reading acquisition and reading comprehension, and developmental interaction of oral
language comprehension and motivation among young children.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psycholog)' of Education:

Lepola, J. (2004). The role of gender and reading competence in the development of motivational orientations from
kindergarten to grade 1. Early Education & Development, 15, 215-240.

Lepola, J, Niemi, P., Kuikka, M., & Hannula, M.M. (2005). Cognitive-linguistic skills and motivation as longitudinal
predictors of reading and arithmetic achievement: A follow-up study from kindergarten to grade 2. International
Journal of Educational Research, 43, 250-271.

Lepola, J., Poskiparta, E., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2005). Developmental interaction of phonological and
motivational processes and naming speed in predicting word recognition in grade 1. Scientific Studies of Reading,
9(\), 365-396.

Marja Vauras. Department of Teacher Education & Centre for Leaming Research, University of Turku,
Assistentinkatu 5, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Current theme of research:

Socially and academically competent, motivated, and self- and co-regulated young leamers in school and family contexts.

Most relevant publications in the field ofPsychology of Education:

Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E., & Kinnunen, R. (1995). Long-term development of leaming activity:
Motivational, cognitive, and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 29, 21-35.
96 P. SALONEN, J. LEPOLA, & M. VAURAS

Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Olkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations and beyond: The development of motivation and
leaming in a classroom context. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching. Vol. 7: Expectations in the
classroom (pp. 111-150). Greenvich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005a). Social interaction - What can it tell us about metacognition and co-
regulation in leaming? European/'5yc/!o/og«to, 10, 199-208.

Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lepola, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2001). Long-term development of motivation and cognition in family
and school contexts. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts:Theoretical advances and
methodological implications (pp. 295-315). London: Pergamon.

Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2006, submitted). Integrating the psychological and social nature of self- and other
forms of regulation in leaming contexts: A case for "Self-in-Context Regulation".