psychology research papper

so ive to write this psy research papper in APA format with 6 pages long, a cover page, a reference page with 5 to 8 references. No personal opinions- use a minimun of one citation per paragraph in the discussion

the project must include (do not add extras)

Introduction (1 paragraph)

discussion- based on referenced material ( 5 pages total )

-Background ( 1 page)

– subtheme 1 ( 2 pages- create a appropriate header name)

– subtheme 2 ( 2 pages- create a appropriate header name )

summary ( 1 paragraph)

and must have a last page with the worked citted in apa format

the searches have to be from the attachment im sending below

my theme is about parenting sistems, authoritative and authoritarium

NUMBER1

Citation

García, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). IS ALWAYS AUTHORITATIVE THE OPTIMUM PARENTING STYLE? EVIDENCE FROM SPANISH FAMILIES. Adolescence, 44(173), 101-31. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/195951210?accountid=39859

1. IS ALWAYS AUTHORITATIVE THE OPTIMUM PARENTING STYLE? EVIDENCE FROM SPANISH FAMILIES

Bibliography

Document 1 of 1

IS ALWAYS AUTHORITATIVE THE OPTIMUM PARENTING STYLE? EVIDENCE FROM SPANISH FAMILIES

Author: García, Fernando; Gracia, Enrique

Publication info: Adolescence 44.173 (Spring 2009): 101-31.

ProQuest document link

Abstract:

Results

showed that both the indulgent and authoritative parenting styles were associated with better outcomes than authoritarian and neglectful parenting. Overall, our results supported the idea that in Spain the optimum style of parenting is the indulgent one, as adolescents’ scores in the four sets of youth outcomes were equal or better than the authoritative style of parenting.

[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Links:

SFX

Full text:

Headnote

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to establish which parenting style is associated with optimum youth outcomes among adolescents of Spanish families. A sample of 1,416 teenagers from 12 to 17 years of age, of whom 57.2% were females, reported on their parents’ child-rearing practices. The teenagers’ parents were classified into one of four groups (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, or neglectful). The adolescents were then contrasted on four different outcomes: (1) self-esteem (academic, social, emotional, family and physical); (2) psychosocial maladjustment (hostility/aggression, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, emotional irresponsiveness, emotional instability, and negative worldview); (3) personal competence (social competence, grade point average, and number of failing grades); and (4) problem behaviors (school misconduct, delinquency, and drug use). Results showed that both the indulgent and authoritative parenting styles were associated with better outcomes than authoritarian and neglectful parenting. Overall, our results supported the idea that in Spain the optimum style of parenting is the indulgent one, as adolescents’ scores in the four sets of youth outcomes were equal or better than the authoritative style of parenting.

Research conducted mainly in Anglo-Saxon contexts with EuropeanAmerican samples has traditionally identified authoritative parents (i.e., warm and responsive parents that provide at the same time firm control and maturity demands) as the optimal parenting style as it has been consistently associated with optimum outcomes of children and adolescents. However, studies conducted in Anglo-Saxon contexts with ethnic minority groups, as well as research carried out in other cultural contexts, cast doubt on whether the authoritative style of parenting is always associated with optimum adjustment of children and adolescents. The aim of this paper is to establish which parenting style is associated with optimum youth outcomes among adolescents of Spanish families. In order to adequately contextualize this study we first examine how parenting styles are theoretically defined. Second, we review research supporting the idea that authoritative parenting is the optimal parenting style as well as research questioning this idea. Third, we explore different theoretical ideas that may account for these inconsistencies. Finally, we draw from this background to propose our hypotheses.

A Two-dimension, Four-typology Model of Parenting Styles

Research examining relationships between parenting styles and children’s outcomes largely follow a four-typology model of parental socialization styles. The four-typology or quadripartite model of parental socialization emerged from the theoretical work of Maccoby and Martin (1983), in which they reviewed Baumrind’s (1967, 1971) initial tripartite model – authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting – proposing a new two-dimensional framework of parental socialization in which the dimensions, responsiveness and demandingness, were theoretically orthogonal (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, pp. 491-492; Smetana, 1995, p. 299; Steinberg, 2005, p. 71). These dimensions mirrored the traditional parenting dimensions of warmth and strictness (Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957; Schaefer, 1959), as “responsiveness was often operationalized using measures of parental warmth and acceptance, while demandingness came to be defined with respect to parental firmness” (Steinberg, 2005, p. 71). The combination of the two dimensions – responsiveness (warmth) and demandingness (strictness) – defined four types of parenting styles: authoritative parents – responsive and demanding; neglectful – neither responsive nor demanding; indulgent parents – responsive but not demanding; and authoritarian parents – demanding but not responsive.

This two-dimension four-typology model of parenting was an important advance with respect to Baumrind’s initial tripartite model in the sense that it divided the original “permissive” category in two, differentiating theoretically between neglectful and indulgent according to degree of responsiveness (warmth), in the same way as the distinction is drawn between authoritarian and authoritative according to degree of demandingness (strictness). As Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991) observed “most discussions and empirial tests of Baumrind’s model . . . ignore variations in warmth among families characterized by low levels of control, grouping these families together into a single category labeled “permissive” (p. 1050). According to Lamborn et al. (1991), this four-typology or quadripartite model stressed the need to consider the combination of the two parenting dimensions in the analysis of its relationships with youth outcomes. Lamborn et al. (1991) validated the four-typology model with a diverse sample of approximately 10,000 high school students in the USA. This model allowed them to examine explicitly whether within the permissive category of the three-typology model the fact that the parents were so cold with their children like the authoritarian (i.e., “neglectful permissiveness”), or on the contrary, were so emotionally involved like the authoritative parents (i.e., “indulgent permissiveness”) implied different outcomes for the children. Their study confirmed distinct relationships between the four (instead of three) parenting styles and several sets of outcomes (Lamborn et al., 1991), and a follow-up study observed that these relationships held after a year (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).

Parenting Styles and Youth Outcomes: Unclear Evidence

A global evaluation of Lamborn et al. (1991) and Steinberg et al. (1994) studies reinforced the idea that the authoritative parent was the optimal parental style. Adolescents from authoritative families would perform better in all youth outcomes examined when compared to adolescents from neglectful families. Results from authoritarian and indulgent families were less clear as they showed a mixture of positive and negative outcomes. For example, adolescents from authoritarian parents – strict but not warm – showed a reasonably adequate position of obethence and conformity with norms (they did well in school and were less likely than their peers to be involved in deviant activities); conversely, they also manifested lower self-reliance and self-competence, and higher psychological and somatic distress. And adolescents from indulgent families – warm but not strict – showed high self-reliance and self-competence, but also showed higher levels of substance abuse and school problems. According to Lamborn et al. (1991), adolescents from authoritarian and indulgent families would perform on all outcomes between the maximum adjustment of the authoritative group and the minimum adjustment of the neglectful group.

Studies conducted in the USA using middle-class European American samples fully supported the idea that the authoritative parenting style was always associated with optimum youth outcomes (e.g., Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Lamborn et al., 1991; Radziszewska, Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996; Steinberg et al., 1994). In addition, a number of studies conducted in other countries using different youth outcomes as criteria, also supported the idea that, compared to the authoritative style, a neglectful style of parenting corresponded with childrens’ poorest performance, whereas authoritarian and indulgent parenting occupied an intermediate position: school integration, psychological well-being (United Kingdom; Shucksmith, Hendry, & Glendinning, 1995), adaptive achievement strategies, self-enhancing attributions (Finland; Aunóla, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000), drug use (Iceland; Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001), and accuracy in perceiving parental values (Israel; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). Altogether, these studies provided evidence that the combination of high levels of parental warmth (responsiveness) and strictness (demandingness) represented the best parenting strategy; the authoritative style of parenting. In fact, these and other studies conducted in countries with a diversity of cultural values led Steinberg (2001) to claim that the benefits of authoritative parenting transcended the boundaries of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and household composition.

However, results from studies in the USA with ethnic minority groups such as African Americans (Baumrind, 1972; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997), Chinese Americans (Chao, 1994; Wang & Phinney, 1998), Hispanic Americans (Torres-Villa, 1995; Zayas & Solari, 1994), or multi-ethnic Americans (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992) questioned the idea that the authoritative style of parenting was always associated with optimum adjustment outcomes among children and adolescents. For example, Steinberg et al. (1992) found that authoritative parenting was strongly linked with adolescents’ measures of achievement and engagement in school with two notable exceptions: (1) for African American adolescents, there was no relationship between authoritative parenting and adolescent achievement and engagement; (2) for Hispanic adolescents, authoritarian parenting was highly related to adolescent engagement, whereas the effect was relatively weak for other subgroups. Research with Chinese American samples also showed that children of authoritarian parents obtained better academic results than children of authoritative parents (Chao, 1994, 1996; 2001). Additionally, results from studies with poor families also questioned the idea that the authoritative style of parenting was always associated with optimum outcomes among adolescents (see Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002). For example, Leung, Lau, and Lam (1998) found differences in the relationship between authoritarian parenting and adolescent academic achievement for parents with little education, but showed no relationship with authoritative parenting. Specifically, for low-educated parents in the United States and Australia, authoritarian parenting was positively related to academic achievement. Some research in Middle East and Asian societies suggested that authoritarian parenting was also an adequate parenting strategy. For example, Quoss and Zhao (1995) found that authoritarian parenting – but not authoritative – predicted satisfaction with the parent-child relationship in Chinese children, while Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, and Farah (2006) found that in Arab societies authoritarian parenting did not harm adolescents’ mental health as it did in Western societies.

On the other hand, another set of studies suggested that adolescents who characterize their parents as indulgent obtain equal or higher scores on different outcomes than adolescents who describe their parents as authoritative. For example, in the Philippines, taking the number of completed Bachelor-level courses as a criterion, no significant differences were found between the authoritative and indulgent households, but there were differences in the neglectful households (Hindin, 2005, p. 312). In another study with German adolescents, those who perceived their parents as indulgent-permissive “seemed to show a distinctive better psychosocial adjustment by scoring lowest on depersonalization and anxiety and showing high levels of active coping” (Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles, 2003, p. 529). Kim and Rhoner (2002) also observed that Korean American adolescents raised by authoritative fathers did not have better academic achievement than youth raised by indulgent fathers. Researchers in South European countries such as Spain (Martinez & Garcia, 2007; Musitu & Garría, 2001, 2004), Turkey (Türkei & Tezer, 2008), and Italy (Marchetti, 1997), or in South American countries such as Mexico (Villalobos, Cruz, & Sánchez, 2004), and Brazil (Martinez & Garcia, 2008; Martinez, Garcia, & Yubero, 2007; Martinez, Musitu, Garcia, & Camino, 2003), also found that children and adolescents of indulgent parents did perform equally or better in several youth outcomes. For example, Martinez et al. (2007) showed that Brazilian adolescents from indulgent families scored equally or higher on several self-esteem dimensions than adolescents from authoritative families. Spanish children from indulgent families also showed better results on some dimensions of self-esteem than children from authoritative families (Martinez & Garcia, 2007; Musitu & Garcia, 2001, 2004).

Explaining the Discrepancies

Clearly, the question that emerges from the above literature review is why research provides such disparate results regarding the relationship between parenting styles and youth outcomes, depending on the ethnic, socioeconomic or cultural context of the study. Different, although related, lines of argument have been proposed to account for these incongruent results.

From a Person-Environment Fit model, echoing the ideas of the ecology of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986), it has been suggested that people adjust better and are more satisfied in environments that match their attitudes, values, and experiences (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). For example, children from authoritative homes may succeed at school better than others because the authoritative climate at home prepares them to function well in authoritative contexts (Pellerin, 2005). The fact that many studies reporting positive (academic) outcomes of the authoritative style of parenting had been conducted in authoritative contexts such as middle-class European-American schools or colleges would illustrate this idea (Hess & Holloway, 1984; Phillips, 1997; Sabe, 1995). In other non-authoritative environments, however, we should not expect that authoritative parenting is always associated with optimum youth outcomes. For example, because poor ethnic minority families are more likely to live in dangerous communities, it has been suggested that authoritarian parenting may not be as harmful and may even carry some protective benefits in hazardous contexts (Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999). For example, Randolph (1995) noted that authoritarian child-rearing practices in the African American community are associated with caring, love, respect, protection, and the benefit of the child. In an environment where the consequences of disobeying parental rules may be serious and harmful to self and others (Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992), an authoritarian style might be as functional as other styles (DeaterDeckard et al., 1996). Further, Wintre and Ben-Knaz (2000) found a positive association between authoritative parenting and feeling stressed and depressed during military basic training, an authoritarian institutional context.

The concepts of collectivism and individualism (vertical and horizontal) have also been called upon to explain observed differences in the association between parenting styles and youth outcomes (e.g., Rudy & Grusec, 2001, 2006; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, 1995, 2001). As defined by Singelis et al. (1995) ‘Vertical or horizontal collectivism includes perceiving the self as part of a collective, either accepting inequality or stressing equality, respectively; vertical or horizontal individualism includes the conception of an autonomous individual and acceptance of inequality or emphasis on equality, respectively” (p. 240). In this respect, it has been argued that authoritarian practices have a positive impact on vertical collectivistic Asiatic cultures because in those contexts strict discipline is understood as beneficial for the children (Graf, Mullís, Mullís, 2008; Grusec, Rudy, & Martini, 1997; Shek, 2008), and because both parents and children see authoritarian practices as an organizational strategy that fosters harmony within the family (Chao 1994; Ho, 1989; Keller, Abels, Borke, Lamm, Lo, Su, et al., 2007). On the other hand, in cultural contexts where a more indulgent style of parenting is culturally promoted, parenting strictness will not have these positive connotations and will be less effective as a parenting practice. Opposite to vertical individualist (e.g., United States) and vertical collectivistic cultures (e.g., some Asiatic countries) which are based on hierarchical relations (Triandis, 1995, 2001), in countries characterized as a horizontal collectivist like some South American countries, such as Mexico and Brazil (Gouveia, Guerra, Martinez, & Paterna, 2004), or South European countries such as Spain or Italy (Gouveia, Albuquerque, Clemente, & Espinosa, 2002; Gouveia, Clemente, & Espinosa, 2003), equalitarian relations are emphasized, and more emphasis is placed on the use of affection, acceptance, and involvement in childrens’ socialization (Mayseless, Scharf, & Sholt, 2003; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). As Rudy and Grusec (2001) pointed out, strictness seems to be perceived in a negative way in cultures that are not based on hierarchical relationships. As a result, strictness and firm control in socialization practices, which involve a hierarchical parent-child relationship, seem not to have a positive association with socialization outcomes in these countries, whereas parenting practices like affection, reasoning, acceptance, and involvement would be positively related with youth outcomes (Ciairano, Kliewer Bonino, & Bosma, 2008; Marchetti, 1997; Martinez et al., 2003; Martinez et al., 2007; Musitu & García, 2004; Villalobos et al., 2004).

The

Present Study

Drawing from the above ideas we would expect that the optimum style of parenting in Spain, where the present study was conducted, should be the indulgent one. This suggests that in Spain (as in other countries) parental warmth, acceptance, and responsiveness are the keys to effective socialization, whereas parental strictness and firm control should not be necessarily associated with well-socialized behavior (see also Lewis, 1981). We should expect therefore that the combination of high levels of parental warmth and low levels of strictness will be associated with optimum youth outcomes. Although some research points in this direction, no conclusive evidence on the relationship between parenting styles and optimum youth outcomes in Spain have been found. For example, research in Spain using Baumrind’s tripartite model (1967, 1971), supported the idea that authoritative parenting is the optimal parenting style (e.g., Bersabé, Fuentes, & Motrico, 2001). On the other hand, research using the quadripartite model (Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), provided support for the view that the indulgent style is associated with optimum youth outcomes. However, this relationship was analyzed only with regard to two internal (self-esteem and internalization of social values) youth outcomes (Musitu & Garcia, 2001, 2004). The present study uses the quadripartite model because it aims to analyze simultaneously two dimensions of parental behavior (assessed by combining an index of parental warmth with an index of strictness). This paper aims also to take previous research further by exploring a larger set of outcome variables than any other previous study conducted in our cultural context. Thus, four sets of youth outcomes often examined in socialization literature were measured in this study: (1) self-esteem (Baumrind, 1993, p. 1308; Maccoby & Martin, 1983, pp. 46-47), assessed with five specific components – academic, social, emotional, family, and physical (Byrne & Shavelson, 1996; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976); (2) psychological adjustment (e.g., Shucksmith et al., 1995), assessed with six indicators – hostility/aggression, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, emotional irresponsiveness, emotional instability, and negative worldview (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002; Lila, García, & Gracia, 2007); (3) personal competence (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins & Thomas, 1979), assessed with three indicators – grade point average, number of school failure grades, social competence (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994); and (4) problem behaviors (e.g., Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001), assessed with three indicators – school misconduct, delinquency, and drug use (e.g., Buelga, Ravenna, Musitu, & Lila, 2006; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: (1) we expected that adolescents from indulgent families will score more positively on the four sets of outcomes than adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families (characterized by low levels of parental warmth), and higher or equal to adolescents from authoritative families (because authoritative parenting shares with indulgent families the same level of parental warmth, although with higher levels of strictness); (2) we expected that adolescents from authoritative families will also score more positively than adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families (both characterized by low levels of parental warmth).

METHOD

Participants

Our sampling frame consisted of 119 high schools from a large metropolitan area in Spain with over one million inhabitants. We applied a simple cluster sampling of all of the education centers. According to Kalton (1983), when clusters (i.e., high schools) are selected randomly, the elements within the clusters (i.e., students) are similar to those selected with a random method. A priori power analysis determined a sample size of 652 observations to detect with a power of .80 (a = .050, 1 – β = .80) a small size (f= .13; estimated from ANOVAs of Lamborn et al., 1991, pp. 1057-1060) in a univariate F-test among four parenting style groups (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). We over-sampled to more than double the sample size (N = 1,400) in order to replicate the seminal example of the typology construction system on tertiles proposed by Lamborn et al. (1991, p. 1053).

To obtain the planned sample size of 1,400 students we contacted the heads of nine schools using our list of education centers (only one high school refused to participate). All students who participated in this study (91% response rate): (1) were Spanish, as were their parents and four grandparents, (2) were students from 7th through 12th grades and ranged in age from 12 to 17, (3) had received their parents’ approval, and (4) attended the designated classroom where the research was conducted. At the end of the sampling process, there were 1,416 participants (16 more than the sample had planned), 810 girls (57.2%) and 606 boys, ranging in age from 12 to 17 (M = 14.9 years, SD = 1.7 years) from 8 high schools.

Measures

Of interest in the present analyses were several demographic variables, two parenting indexes that were used to construct the family types, and four sets of outcome variables.

Demographic variables. A family information sheet was used to collect socio-demographic data (see Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994) of adolescents and their families: child sex, birth date, academic grade, family structure (two natural parents, single-parent, stepfamily, or other), and parental education (coded as a two-level variable: less than college completion or college completion and higher).

Parenting styles. Parental warmth was measured using the Warmth/ Affection Scale (WAS, Rohner, Saavedra, & Granum, 1978). Adolescents responded to the two versions of the WAS, one assessing perceptions of their fathers (or primary male caregivers), and one assessing perceptions of their mothers (or primary female caregivers). The WAS has been used in approximately 300 studies within the United States and internationally in the past two decades (see Rohner & Khaleque, 2003), including Spain (e.g., Lila & Gracia, 2005). The WAS scale is a reliable measure of the extent to which adolescents perceive his or her parents as loving, responsive, and involved (sample items: “Tries to help me when I am scared or upset,” and ‘Talks to me about our plans and listens to what I have to say”). Cronbach alpha for this 20-item scale was .91 for the mother version, and .93 for the father version (correlation between both versions, r = .76, ? < .001). Parental strictness was measured using the Parental Control Scale (PCS, Rohner, 1989; Rohner & Khaleque, 2003). Adolescents responded to both the mother and the father versions of the PCS. The PCS scale has been used across five culturally distinct populations (see Rohner & Khaleque, 2003). The PCS scale assesses the extent to which the adolescent perceives strict parental control of his/her behavior (sample items: "Tells me exactly what time to be home when I go out," and "Gives me certain jobs to do and I will not let me do anything else until they are done"). Cronbach alpha for this 13-item scale was .80 for the mother version, and .82 for the father version (correlation between both versions, r = .84, ? <.001). On both scales, adolescents rated all items with the same 4-point scale (1 = almost never true, 4 = almost always true). Both parenting indexes measured family parenting behavior (see Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994) so that higher scores represent a greater sense of parental warmth and parental strictness (Rohner & Khaleque, 2003).

Following the examples of Lamborn et al. (1991, p. 1053) and Steinberg et al. (1994, p. 758), the four parenting styles – authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful – were denned with a tertile split (33th and 66th percentile) on each family parenting dimension – warmth and strictness – and examined the two variables simultaneously. Mothers’ and fathers’ scores of warmth and strictness were averaged in two-parent households to obtain each family’s parenting dimension (Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006; Stevens, 1992, p. 243). Authoritative families were those who scored above the 66th percentile on both warmth and strictness, whereas neglectful families scores below the 33th percentile on both variables. Authoritarian families were above the 66th percentile on strictness but below the 33th percentile on warmth. Indulgent families were above the 66th percentile on warmth but below the 33th percentile on strictness. Some research indicates that similar results are obtained by dichotomizing the sample using median (50th percentile) split procedures (see Chao, 2001, p. 1836; Kremers, Brug, Vries, & Engels, 2003, p. 46). However, a fertile split procedure, although needing a greater sample size than a median split procedure, maximizes the variance explained (see Kerlinger, 1973) ensuring that the four groups represent distinct categories (Lamborn et al., 1991). Sample-specific split procedures (i.e., median or tertile) are considered appropriate for heuristic (non-diagnostic) purposes of communitarian (non-clinical) studies (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991), and avoids the problems associated with the use of predetermined cutoffs scores in cross-cultural research when the scales of measures are not clearly equivalent (see Bingenheimer, Raudenbush, Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn, 2005).

Sample

split procedure only implicates sample-specific ordinal claims (see Frick, 1996) relating to the order of categories among dimensions; for example, families in the “indulgent” category are indeed relatively more indulgent (i.e., more warmth and less strict) than the other families in the sample (Lamborn et al., 1991; p. 1053). In addition, following Musitu and Garcia (2001), we split the sample by sex and age groups because, generally, the scales of these measures are not clearly equivalent for these sociodemographic groups (Musitu & Garcia, 2001).

Outcome variables. Four sets of outcome variables were examined: self-esteem, psychosocial maladjustment, personal competence, and problem behaviors. Self-esteem was measured with the five subscales of the AF5 (AF5 Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale; Garcia & Musitu, 1999): Academic (e.g., “I do my homework well”; alpha = .89); Social (e.g., “I make friends easily”; alpha = .71), Emotional (e.g., reverse scored, “I am afraid of some things”; alpha = .70), Family (e.g., “I am happy at home”; alpha = .85), and Physical (e.g., “I take good care of my physical health”; alpha = .74). Each of these areas is measured with six items on a scale of 1 to 99, where 1 corresponds to complete disagreement and 99 to complete agreement. In the AF5 scale, selfesteem is understood as multidimensional and hierarchically ordered, based on the Shavelson and colleague’s theoretical model (Byrne & Shavelson, 1996; Shavelson et al., 1976). The AF5 was originally normed and validated in Spain (Garcia & Musitu, 1999) with a sample of 6,483 participants of both sexes and among ages ranging from 10 to 62 (3,481 of which ages ranged from 12 to 17) and is more comprehensive than the tools used by the majority of studies. For example, the shorter Rosenberg’s scale contains only 10 to 15 items. Its one-dimensional (Wylie, 1979), method appears to be associated with negatively worded items (Tomás & Oliver, 1999), and has not been normed for adolescents in Spain (Martin-Albo, Nüñez, Navarro, & Grijalvo, 2007). The five-factorial structure of AF5 was confirmed with both exploratory (Garcia & Musitu, 1999; Martinez, 2005) and confirmatory (Garcia, Musitu, & Veiga, 2006; Tomás & Oliver, 2004) factor analyses, and no method effect appears to be associated with negatively worded items (Tomás & Oliver, 2004). In addition, AF5 has been extensively applied as an outcome measure in numerous Spanish studies (e.g., Guai, PérezGaspar, Martinez-Gonzalez, Lahortiga, de Irala-Estévez, & CerveraEnguix, 2002; Martínez-González, Guai, Lahortiga, Alonso, de IralaEstévez, & Cervera, 2003), and it has been used to validate other instruments (e.g., Garaigordobil & Pérez, 2007; Martin-Albo et al., 2007). The AF5 scales are keyed so that a higher score represents a greater sense of self-esteem.

Personal adjustment was measured with six subscales of the Child PAQ (Personality Assessment Questionnaire; Rohner, 1990) which assesses the way in which youngsters perceive their own personality with respect to six indices of behavioral dispositions: (a) Hostility/aggression (sample item: “I think about fighting or being mean”; alpha = .60), (b) Negative self-esteem (sample reverse item: “I like myself; alpha = .73), (c) Negative self-adequacy (sample reverse item: “I can compete successfully for the things I want”; alpha = .61), (d) Emotional irresponsiveness (sample item: “It is easy for me to show my friends that I really like them”; alpha = .64), (e) Emotional instability (sample item: “I get upset when things go wrong”; alpha = .63), and (f) Negative worldviews (sample reverse item: “I think the world is a good, happy place”; alpha = .74). These reliabilities were within the range of variation commonly observed for these scales in other studies (Rohner & Khaleque, 2005). Each of these indicators is measured with six items on a 4-point scale (1 = almost never true, 4 = almost always true). These six PAQ measures are contrasted indices of psychological maladjustment among children and adults regardless of differences in gender, race, geography, language, or culture (see Khalaque & Rohner, 2002). The PAQ scales are keyed so that higher scores represent a greater sense of psychological maladjustment.

Adolescent personal competence was measured with three indices (overall grade point average, number of failing academic grades, and social competence). Respondents provided information on their current high school grades on a scale of 0 to 10 (the standard in Spanish schools). Self-reported grades are highly correlated with actual grades taken from official school records (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). The number of failing academic grades was calculated from participant’s birth date, test date, and adolescent grade. The measure of social competence was an adaptation from the social competence subscale of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1982). The social competence measure (alpha = .65) includes seven items that ask students whether they perceive themselves as popular, as having many friends, and as making friends easily. The participants are asked to read two alternatives (e.g., “Some teenagers feel that they are socially accepted, but other teenagers wish that more people their age would accept them”) and choose the one that is more like themselves. Two youth personal competence indices (grade point average and social competence) were keyed so that higher scores represent a greater sense of personal competence. Number of failing academic grades was keyed so that higher scores represent a lower sense of personal competence.

Problem behaviors were measured with three indices: drug and alcohol use, school misconduct, and delinquency (Lambort et al., 1991). The measure of school misconduct assesses the frequency of such behaviors as cheating, copying homework, and tardiness (alpha = .62) (Ruggiero, 1984). The measure of delinquency assesses the frequency of such behaviors as carrying a weapon, theft, and getting into trouble with the police (alpha = .77) (Gold, 1970). The measure of drug and alcohol use taps the frequency of involvement with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs (alpha = .73) (Greenberger, Steinberg, & Vaux, 1981). Although self-reports of deviant behavior are subject to both under and over reporting (see McGord, 1990), most researchers agree that these provide a closer approximation of youngsters’ true involvement in deviant activity than do “official” reports (e.g., police records), and the practice of using self-report data in the study of adolescent deviance is widely established (see Gold, 1970; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; McGord, 1990). The three problem behavior indices were keyed so that higher scores represent a greater sense of problem behaviors.

With the exception of grade point average and number of failing academic grades, all outcome variables have been scaled on a common four-point Likert-scale, with 1 as low (e.g., never, strongly disagree, not like me) and 4 as high (e.g., frequently, strongly agree, very much like me). In the case of grade point average, scores were converted from the numerical standard (0-10) in Spain to the grade standard in USA, ranging from 0 (all Fs) to 4 (all A’s) (see Lambort et al., 1991).

Plan of

Analysis

A factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied for each of the four sets of outcome variables (self-esteem, psychosocial maladjustment, personal competence, and problem behaviors), with a 4 (parenting style: authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) by 2 (sex: girls vs. boys) by 2 (parental education: < college vs. college) factorial design with interactions. Our expectation was that the results would vary as a function of parenting style and of adolescent gender, and parental education (see Gracia & Herrero, 2008; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994); but no interactions were expected of parenting style with each of these variables for each set of outcomes (e.g., Amato & Fowler, 2002; Aunóla et al., 2000; Lamborn et al., 1991; Martínez et al., 2007; Musitu & García, 2001; Steinberg et al., 1994). Preliminary analyses showed no interactions of parenting styles with family structure (Lamborn et al., 1991), and of parenting styles with adolescents' age (Martinez & Garcia, 2008) for each of four sets of outcomes. Univariate follow-up F tests were conducted within the four sets of outcomes that had multivariate significant overall differences, and significant results on the univariate tests were followed up using Bonferroni's comparisons between all pairs of means. Given our primary interest in parenting styles, we did not focus on the effects of gender or parental education. However, when such effects were statistically significant, we noted them.

RESULTS

Parenting style groups. To define parenting style groups we followed textile split procedures, controlling for sex and age (Table 1). Nearly 45% of the families (n = 612) fell into one of these four groups. Applying the post hoc power analysis (a = .05, f = .13, n = 612) a power of .77 was obtained (Erdfelder et al., 1996), close to the conventional value of .80 (Cohen, 1965; Garcia, Pascual, Frías, Van Kunckelsven, & Murgui, 2008). Table 1 provides information on the sizes of each of the four parenting groups as well as each group’s mean and standard deviation on parental dimensions’ measures: warmth and strictness. Additional anlyses showed that these two measures of parental dimensions were modestly intercorrelated, r = -.06, R^sup 2^ = .004, p < .05, and that the distribution of families by parenting style groups were only modestly different, χ^sup 2^(3) = 11.23, p < .05. No interactions were found when crossing sex by parenting style, χ^sup 2^(3) = .70, p > .05; and adolescents’ school grade by parenting style, χ^sup 2^(15) = 16.41, p > .05. Table 2 indicates that families scoring in the upper or lower tertiles on the parenting dimensions are demographically comparable to the overall project sample. Table 3 presents means and standard deviations on the outcome variables for the complete sample of the study.

Factorial multivariate analysis. Neither interaction of the four threeway MANOVA was significant (Table 4); hence only significant main multivariate Fs were followed up with univariate F tests (Table 5). All MANOVAs, as well as the univariate tests associated with each set of outcome variables (see Tables 4 and 5), indicated a significant effect for parenting styles. Sample effect sizes were systematically higher for parenting styles than planned (always higher than .18, M = .29, medium effect size). This enabled us to carry out pair-wise comparisons in order to contrast the two hypotheses of the study (Table 5).

Main effects for sex, and parental education. Although not central to the thrust of this study (sex and parental education did not change the relationships between parenting styles and youth outcomes), several univariate main effects for sex and parental education reached significance (see Table 5). With respect to measures of self-esteem, the analyses indicated that academic self-esteem scores were higher among girls, but emotional and physical self-esteem scores were higher among boys; emotional self-esteem scores were higher for adolescents of parents with higher education. With respect to measures of psychological maladjustment, girls reported more negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, and emotional instability. With respect to measures of personal competence, higher scores were reported by adolescents of parents with higher education. Finally, with respect to problem behaviors, boys reported more school misconduct and delinquency, and adolescents of parents with higher education reported less school misconduct and delinquency.

Self-esteem and parenting styles. As first hypothesized (Table 5), adolescents who characterized their parents as indulgent scored higher on all measures of self-esteem than did adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families. Also, as first hypothesized, adolescents from indulgent families scored more positively than those from authoritative parents on one measure of self-esteem (emotional), and equal on the other four areas of self-esteem measured (academic, social, family, and physical). Results partially confirmed the second hypothesis. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative scored more positively than those from authoritarian and neglectful families on all areas of self-esteem measured, except for emotional self-esteem, where adolescents from authoritative families scored lower than those from neglectful parents.

Psychological maladjustment and parenting styles. As first hypothesized (Table 5), adolescents who characterized their parents as indulgent scored more positively on all measures of psychological maladjustment than did adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families, except for emotional instability (where adolescents of neglectful parents share the same scores). Also, as first hypothesized, adolescents from indulgent families scored more positively than did adolescents from authoritative parents on two measures of psychological maladjustment (emotional irresponsiveness, and negative worldview), and equal on three measures of psychological maladjustment (hostility/aggression, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy). Again, results only partially confirmed the second hypothesis. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative scored more positively than did adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families on four measures of psychological maladjustment (hostility/ aggression, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, and emotional irresponsiveness). However, although these adolescents scored more positively on the measure of negative worldview than those from authoritarian parents, their scores equaled those of adolescents from neglectful families. Results for the measure of emotional instability indicated that differences were not statistically significant.

Personal competence and parenting styles. As first hypothesized (Table 5), adolescents who characterized their parents as indulgent tend to score more positively on measures of personal competence than do adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families. However, no differences were found with respect to neglectful families on social competence. Also, as first hypothesized, adolescents’ scores from indulgent families were equal on two measures of personal competence (social competence and grade point average) to those of adolescents from authoritative families. However, adolescents from indulgent families scored more positively than adolescents from authoritative parents on number of failing grades. Results partially confirmed the second hypothesis. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative scored more positively than did adolescents from authoritarian parents on measures of social competence and grade point average, but the same on number of failing grades. Moreover, adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative scored more positively than adolescents from neglectful parents on grade point average, but the same on number of failing grades (results for social competence were statistically indistinguishable with respect to adolescents who characterized their parents as neglectful).

Problem behaviors and parenting styles. As first hypothesized (Table 5), adolescents who characterized their parents as indulgent scored more positively on all measures of problem behaviors (school misconduct, delinquency, and drug use) than did adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families. Also, as hypothesized, adolescents from indulgent families scored the same on all measures of problem behaviors than did adolescents from authoritative families. Results confirmed the second hypothesis. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative scored more positively than adolescents from authoritarian and neglectful families on measures of problem behaviors.

DISCUSSION

The study aimed to analyze the relationships between parenting styles and adolescents’ youth outcomes using a two-dimensional fourtypology model of parenting styles, and four sets of outcome variables with a sample of Spanish adolescents. We expected that high levels of parental warmth combined with low levels of parental strictness (i.e., an indulgent style of parenting) would be associated with optimum youth outcomes. Overall, our results supported the idea that in Spain the optimum style of parenting is the indulgent one, because adolescents’ scores on the four sets of youth outcomes were equal to or better than the authoritative style of parenting.

These results confirm previous research in some South European (Marchetti, 1997; Musitu & Garcia, 2001, 2004) and South American countries (Martinez et al., 2003; Martinez et al., 2007; Villalobos et al., 2004), as well as in other cultural contexts (Hindin, 2005; Wolfradt et al., 2003; Kim & Rhoner, 2002), suggesting that adolescents from indulgent families do perform equally or even better than adolescents from authoritative households. Our results also add to a growing body of research questioning the idea that the authoritative parenting style is always associated with optimum youth outcomes across all cultural and ethnic contexts (see Steinberg, 2001). For example, in some ethnic and cultural contexts, authoritarian parenting has successfully competed with authoritative parenting for some optimal outcomes (e.g., Chao, 1994; 2001; Dwairy et al., 2006; Leung, et al., 1998; Quoss & Zhao, 1995; Steinberg et al., 1992). The present study suggests that, at least in some cultural contexts, indulgent parenting can also compete with authoritative parenting for optimal outcomes in adolescence.

Our results confirmed the first hypothesis because adolescents from indulgent families scored more positively on the four sets of outcomes than did those from authoritarian and neglectful families. Adolescents from indulgent families also scored equally or higher than adolescents from authoritative families. In this respect, it is interesting to note that we consistently found that adolescents from authoritative families performed worse than those from indulgent families on several outcomes associated with emotional adjustment and academic achievement. Compared to adolescents from indulgent families, those from authoritative families were more emotionally unresponsive (i.e., more emotionally insulated from others), held a more negative worldview (i.e., an overall evaluation of life as more insecure, threatening, hostile or uncertain), scored lower on emotional self-esteem (i.e., positive feelings and self-appraisal about one’s emotional state and control over Stressors), and scored worse on the number of failing grades. In the rest of the outcomes examined, adolescents from authoritative families performed equally with adolescents from indulgent families, but never better. As we also hypothesized, overall, adolescents from authoritative families also performed better than those from authoritarian and neglectful families.

From these results, indulgent parenting (characterized by the combination of high levels of warmth and low levels of strictness) appears to be in the Spanish cultural context the optimum parenting style. Adolescents of authoritative families (where adolescents perform equally and, in some cases, worse than adolescents from indulgent families) would perform between the maximum adjustment of the indulgent group and the minimum overall adjustment of the authoritarian and neglectful parenting. Both the indulgent and authoritative parenting styles (high levels of parental warmth and involvement) are associated with better outcomes than authoritarian and neglectful parenting (both sharing low levels of parental warmth and involvement). However, because adolescents from authoritative families (characterized by high levels of strictness) in some cases perform worse than those from indulgent families (characterized by low levels of strictness), this suggests that the key to effective socialization is parental warmth and involvement (all parenting styles with low levels of parental warmth tend to perform worse). This also suggests that strictness is either unnecessary or of little importance (adolescents from authoritative parents perform in many outcomes equally with those from indulgent parents), or may be associated with negative outcomes (those from authoritative parenting perform worse in some outcomes). Therefore, the combination of high levels of parental warmth and involvement with low levels of strictness appears to be the best parenting strategy in the Spanish context.

Clearly, these results differ from those obtained in other cultural contexts. But they can be explained by drawing from the theoretical ideas outlined earlier. In a cultural context, such as that of Spain, which has been described as horizontal collectivistic (Gouveia et al., 2003; Triandis, 1995, 2001), egalitarian rather than hierarchical relations are emphasized, and strictness in parental practices would not have the positive meaning they would have in other contexts such as the United States – characterized by vertical individualism – or Asian cultures – characterized by vertical collectivism. Whereas in these latter contexts, where hierarchical relations are emphasized more, parental strictness practices would be more effective (Rudy & Grusec, 2001), in horizontal collectivistic countries these practices would be more ineffective or unnecessary for effective socialization (Gouveia et al., 2004; Martínez et al., 2007; Martínez & García, 2007). These issues are, however, still open to debate (Keller et al., 2007; Lins-Dyer & Nucci, 2007; Reglin & Adams, 1990; Sorkhabi, 2005). As Sorkhabi (2005) noted, more research is needed before conclusions can be reached about the extent to which culture constructs such as individualism and collectivism explain effects on child development.

Finally, this study has some strengths and limitations. One strength is the use of a wide range of outcomes which allowed us to explore the relevance of the different parenting styles on youth outcomes that posit different socialization challenges (e.g., enhancing self-esteem, reducing problem behaviors, improving school performance); and extending the results of other studies with a more limited number of outcomes and different measures of parenting dimensions (e.g., Musitu & Garcia, 2004; Martínez & Garcia, 2007, 2008). Also the magnitude of effects obtained in this study is even higher than those found in other classical studies examining these issues (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991). Despite these strengths, two considerations need to be taken into account. First, results may have been influenced by the fact that the adolescents reported on their parents’ behavior, although adolescent self-reports contribute meaningfully to our understanding of family process (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Steinberg et al., 1994), and similar results have been obtained on parenting styles in spite of different methods of data collection (see Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Second, the study was cross-sectional and hence did not provide the opportunity to test causal hypotheses which explore issues of directionality (Lila, Van Aken, Musitu, & Buelga, 2006; Maccoby, 2000). Therefore in the absence of longitudinal or experimental data, the findings here must be considered as preliminary.

NUMBER 2

CITATION

Sartaj, B., & Aslam, N. (2010). Role of authoritative and authoritarian parenting in home, health and emotional adjustment. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 20(1), 47-66. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/612886697?accountid=39859

The present study aimed at investigating the impact of authoritarian and authoritative parenting in home, health and emotional adjustment. Moreover, the study explored the relationship of parenting with Adjustment. Relationships of authoritative and authoritarian parenting with home, health and emotional adjustment of adolescents were compared. The sample of the study consisted of 200 college students (100 female and 100 male). They were selected from the different colleges of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. Age range of the sample was 16 to 19 years. Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ, Babree, 1997) and Indian Adaptation of Bell’s Adjustment Inventory Scale (Sharma, 1988) were used in the study. Correlation and t-test were used to analyze data. Findings showed that adolescents raised by authoritative parents have better home, health and emotional adjustment as compared to adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. Authoritative parents have positive and authoritarian parents have negative relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment.

Key words: Authoritative Parenting, Authoritarian Parenting, Home Adjustment, Health Adjustment, Emotional Adjustment

The parent child relationship has important and significant impacts for a child. A parental style is an important component that shapes the child’s views about themselves and their world. Parents are a source of producing healthy self-esteem, self worth, healthy thinking and behavior in children (Santrock, 2005).

Considerable research has focused on aspects of Parenting behavior and the parent-child relationship in order to understand the ways in which parents influence their children’s functioning.

Researchers have found positive relationship between parenting and child outcomes including academic success, cognitive development, emotion regulation, and adjustment (Davidov, & Grusec, 2006; Denham, Workman, Cole, Weissbrod, Kendziora, & Zahnaxler, 2000; Laible, 2004; Pettit, & Spera, 2005). Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between pathological symptoms in children and family functioning (Dleiden, Vaseym, & Brown. 1999; Johnston, & Ohan. 1999).

Davies, Cummings, and Winter (2004) suggest that parenting style has a significant effect on children’s behavior (Johnson, Kent, & Leather, 2005; Nair, & Murray, 2005; Steele, Nesbitt-Daly, Daniel, & Forehand, 2005). Compared with children who feel accepted by their parents, children who feel rejected display greater levels of hostility and aggression, dependency, defensive independence and emotional instability, lower self-esteem, and a more negative (Palmer, & Hollin, 2000; Rohner, & Britner, 2002; Russ, Heim, & Westen, 2003; Barnow, Lucht, & Freyberger, 2005).

Adolescence is a critical period for the development of healthy behaviors and lifestyles. Findings from numerous studies over the past 20 years suggest that the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship has significant impact on the development or prevention of risky adolescent health behaviors (Barbara, 2006).

There are two important elements of parenting: parental responsiveness and parental demandingness. Parental responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents intentionally enhanced individuality, regularity, and self-assertion by being familiar, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands (Baumrind, 1991). Parental demandingness refers to the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys (Baumrind, 1991). Parenting styles among Asian parents have been variously described as authoritarian, controlling, restrictive, punitive and hostile (Cheryl, Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, & Diana, 2005).

Authoritarian Parenting

The authoritarian parenting style has acquired a negative connotation in western literature, primarily because of the negative child and adolescent outcomes frequently as with it. Parenting styles among Asian parents have been variously described as authoritarian, controlling, restrictive and hostile. Parents who apply this style tend to limit children’s independence and force them to follow strict rules by threatening harsh punishment for violations. They also tend to be less responsive to and accepting of their children. By preventing children from exercising control over their own behaviors and learning from their mistakes, authoritarian parents inadvertently may be rearing children to believe that they are not responsible for what happens to them. Authoritarian parenting style has repeatedly been found correlated with negative self perceptions (Cheryl, Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, & Diana, 2005).

This style is characterized as high in demandingness/control but low in acceptance/warmth. It has been defined as, a restrictive, punitive style where parents exhort the adolescent to follow the parent’s directions and to respect work and effort. The authoritarian parent places firm limits and controls on the adolescent and allows little verbal exchange. This style is associated with adolescent’s socially incompetent behavior (Baumrind, 1991). These parents tell the adolescent not to argue or question adults and instead of explaining or reasoning, admonish their children by telling them that they will understand better when they are grown up. They set rules which cannot be challenged, rarely explaining why obethence is required and often rely on power tactics to ensure compliance. They have a “militarían” view expecting blind obethence and making no choice for dissention or disagreement (Darling, 1999).

Children of such parents either tend to withdraw into themselves (internalizing) or become aggressive (externalizing) towards others. These adolescents are maladjusted individuals who either have difficulty coping, because of their low self-esteem or may bully others in return, ignoring the rights of others just as their rights have been ignored. Altaf (2002) studied Pakistani adolescent’s tendencies towards extremism with the parenting style. He found children of authoritarian parents to have more tendencies of extremism, than the children of nonauthoritarian parents. In addition to this, these teenagers are often anxious about social companions, fail to initiate activity and have poor communication skills. Adolescents of authoritarian parents often have foreclosed identities (Baumrind, 1991; Darling, 1999; Steinberg, 1994; Santrock, 2005).

Authoritative Parenting

Authoritative parenting style encourages children to be independent but still places limits and controls on their actions. Authoritative parenting has beneficial effects promoting adolescents psychological health and academic achievement. Baumrind (1971) classification authoritative parenting is documented as being the optimal parenting style with better outcomes. Authoritative parenting style has repeatedly been found to be correlated with positive self-perceptions. Authoritative parents guide children in a rational, issue-oriented manner by explaining the reasoning behind rules. By allowing children to learn from their mistakes and to proceed independently when fairing well, parents may be encouraging their children’s future self-reliance this is characterized by high acceptance/warmth and high control/demanded. It has been explained as; parents encourage adolescents to be independent but place limits and controls on their actions. They allow extensive give and take and are warm and nurturing in order to make them socially competent, self reliant/confident and pro-social adolescents (Cheryl, 2005). Parental Warmth refers to the degree in which parents display involvement, responsiveness, and support (Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003).

These parents monitor their youth supervising their social setting, activities and friends. They encourage the adolescent to look at both sides of the issue, admitting that the children may know more than the adults in some issues, and welcome their participation in family decisions. They set aside and enforce standards, encouraging independency and individuality. They are flexible and though demanding and exerting control when required are also responsive and accepting. Although these parents set rules and consistently enforce them, they do however explain the rationales for their rules and regulations (Baumrind, 1991).

They are assertive without being intrusive or restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive instead of punitive which has been backed by research as a means of fostering self-esteem in teenagers. Arshad (2001) studied a sample of 100 teenagers using the PAQ scale as a measuring tool research showed that both the dimensions of acceptance and control were a vital ingrethent for adolescents selfesteem. Adolescents of authoritative parents have identity achieved or moratorium as their status. Willemson and Waterman (1991) used a sample of 83 college students ranging in age from 18-22 years with the EOM-EIS version. They concluded that those women who perceived their family as promoting growth in the intellectual culture sphere were identity achieved in both ideological and interpersonal domains whereas men who perceived their families as encouraging independence correlated with identity achieved status. Children of authoritative parents are happy and satisfied with their parents, and have less psychological problems, self-reliant, self-controlled, secure, popular, inquisitive, joyful, satisfied, trusting, loved and hopeful. They lack defensive independence as they are happy and satisfied from their parents because they are there to guide, help and support them (Peggy, 2000).

Role of Authoritarian and Authoritative Parenting in Home Adjustment

Adjustment involves a person’s attempt to cope with and master the challenges of life. However, adjustments themselves are not always definite, nor do always are “right” or “wrong”, nor do they necessarily have clear starting points or endings. Adjustment is a process, it involves continuous change and it is important quality in that people develop consistent patterns of adjusting to these constant changes (Kaplan, 1984). Home Adjustment refers to healthy association with family and balanced home life (Sharma, 1988).

Authoritarian parents are status oriented and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation. They restrict the autonomy of the child and instruct what behavior is appropriate for him or her. They ignore their children’s point of view. Adolescents living in authoritarian families with high levels of conflict or discord are more likely to have both internalizing and externalizing problems. Baumrind (1991) described that as parental conflict increased, adolescent functioning deteriorated. Both parents and children are less attached with each other, lack communication and adolescents have poorer social skills, helplessness, loneliness and lower self-esteem Measures of coercive and punitive control, such as physical or emotional punishment is often used by authoritarian parents as means of disciplining the child. As a result fear and terror is found in children. Due to harsh behavior of parents adolescents are found to be unhappy, dissatisfied, moodiness, apprehensive, fearful and socially inhibited.

Authoritative parents in contrast tend to have good nurturing skills and exercise moderate parental control to allow the child to become progressively more autonomous. Children of authoritative parents have a high level of self-esteem, self confidence, self-reliant, self controlled, secure, popular and inquisitive. Both parents and children have good relations and closely attached with each other, share views and opinions, and high level of communication is found in them. They showed fewer psychological and behavior problems. Overall development of children of authoritative parents is positive and low incidence of delinquency or behavioral problems are found in them Authoritative parents’ goals are to promote fairness and kindness by helping their children consider alternatives when making decisions, and then supporting their children through the appropriate and inappropriate choices they make. For example, if a child is late for dinner, their food may be cold or there may be nothing left to eat. The child will prepare his own food and eat alone. This is not a punishment but natural consequences of being late for a meal (Goh, 2006).

Role of Authoritarian and Authoritative Parenting in Health Adjustment

Health Adjustment refers to physical as well as mental disease (Sharma, 1988). Children of authoritarian parents are found in continuous stress and tension and to reduce it they indulge themselves in risky behaviors. These children also reported headaches, fatigue and tiredness because of harshness of parents. Mary (2003) concluded that parental behaviors are significant precursors to disruptive behavior, vulnerability and substance use by children and adolescents. They also found that students who smoke and drink perceive their parents as less authoritative than students who do not. Stress, tension and strictness are found to be a strong inverse predictor of the child’s alcohol use (Mary, 2003). These children also reported digestive problems, nausea, tiredness and headaches. Also higher rates of migraines are found in the children of authoritarian parents. Another health issue linked to poor eating habits that has received much attention in recent years is obesity. Obesity is more highly associated with the authoritarian parenting style (Newman, & Harrison, 2007).

Impact on health of the children of authoritative parenting style is totally opposite of authoritarian parenting style. Authoritative parents are controlling and demanding but also warm and receptive to the child’s communication (Stephanie, Jason, & Rebecca, 2001). Positive feedback, encouragement and physical affection from parents predicted lower risk of stress, tension, fatigue and risky behaviors of adolescents. Friendly environment is provided by authoritative parents and adolescents do not live in continuous stress, tension and depression that lead to risky health behaviors. Lower rates of alcohol use, tobacco use, smoking is found in these children. Also lower rates of tiredness, fatigue and headaches are found in them; they remain physically active and do not have dietary and digestive problems (Malik, 2005).

Role of Authoritarian and Authoritative Parenting in Emotional Adjustment

Emotional adjustment is the maintenance of emotional stability in the face of internal and external stressors. This capacity is an important aspect of mental health and where it is compromised, or not developed, psychopathology and mental disorder can result (Kiff, 1991). Emotional adjustment refers to the psychological problems in life (Sharma, 1988).

Adolescents from authoritarian families have poor social skills, lower self-esteem and higher level of depression than do children of authoritative parents. Authoritarian parents tend to rear girls who are less independent, boys who are more aggressive, and children who appear discontent and more extrinsically motivated. When parents act on feelings of hostility, anger, resentment, or enmity, the children become aggressive, shows anger in different ways and have more behavioral problems. They are hostile, emotional irresponsible, impaired self-esteem, impaired self adequacy and negative world view. Because of all this psychological hurt, some adolescents become defensively independent. They started hating them and become revengeful. This process sometimes escalates into a cycle of violence and other serious relationship problems (Jennifer, & Katherine, 2004; Michelle, 2002).

Children of authoritative parents are totally opposite from of the authoritarian parents. Authoritative parents are more affectionate and pay attention to their children’s needs for attention and help. Children have high self-esteem, self-confident and have leadership qualities. It was also seen that authoritative parenting was by far the best predictor of later school success among students, they encourage them thus make them confident and promote emotional well-being and academic competence (for more details see for example, Tennen, Brett, & DeHart, 2006). They are emotional responsiveness and respect and love their parents. They are happy and satisfied with their parents, and have less behavioral and emotional problems (Aafer, 2001). Children of authoritative parenting tend to be self-reliant, self-controlled, secure, popular, inquisitive, joyful, satisfied, trusting, loved and hopeful. They are trustworthy and not threatening and dangerous for other people. Authoritative parenting style is also associated with the development of autonomy in their children (Peggy, 2000).

Objectives of the Study

The present study aims at investigating the impact of authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles in home, health and emotional adjustments of adolescents, as the relevant researches suggest clearly that authoritative and authoritarian parenting have an incredible amount of effect in home, health and emotional adjustment of adolescents. It also aims to find out the relationship of authoritarian and authoritative parenting in adjustment of adolescents.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses have been formulated:

1. Adolescents raised by authoritative parents are more likely to have better home adjustment as compared with adolescents raised by authoritarian parents.

2. Adolescents raised by authoritative parents are more likely to have better health adjustment as compared with adolescents raised by authoritarian parents.

3. Adolescents raised by authoritative parents are more likely to have better emotional adjustment as compared with adolescents raised by authoritarian parents.

4. Authoritative parenting is more likely to have positive relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment.

5. Authoritarian parenting is more likely to have negative relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment.

Method

Sample

The study was carried out on a sample of 200 adolescents with equal number of boys and girls. Age range of the sample was between 16-19 years and it was collected from different colleges of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Assessment Measures

For the present study following scales were used:

1) Parental Authority Questionnaire. In 1991, Buri developed the parental authority questionnaire. It is primarily used to measure the control dimension of parenting. It is a Likert Type Scale and is designed to measure the three parenting styles given by Baumrind i.e., permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian parenting styles. PAQ essentially measures the degree, magnitude as well as the manner in which parents exert control on their children. The items of the questionnaire are stated as such that they evaluate the child’s point of view concerning the patterns of control or authority his or her parents exert. Response categories are on a 5-point scale that ranges from “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5). There are two parts to this questionnaire. Each part consists of 30 items and yields authoritative, authoritarian and permissive scores. Part 1 assesses the father’s attitude toward the child, and part II assesses the mother’s attitude toward the child (Buri, 1991). PAQ has been translated and adapted from its original form by Babree (1997).

Combined score of both fathers and mother’s authoritativeness and authoritarianism parenting styles was taken in this study. Scores on each of these variables range from 10 to 50. The higher the score achieved, the greater the appraisal level of the parental authority prototype measured. For present the study, alpha reliability of the authoritative father is .94, authoritarian father is .96, authoritative mother is .89 and authoritarian mother is .93.

2) Indian Adaptation of BeIVs Adjustment Inventory. A widely used personality inventory is the Bell’s Adjustment Inventory (Bell, 1934) which measures four areas of Adjustment Home, Health, Social and emotional, separately as well as a composite scores for overall adjustment.

Indian Adaptation of Bell’s Adjustment Inventory was developed by Sharma (1988).In the present study three sub-scales were used. Home Adjustment scale is comprised of 20 items, Health Adjustment scale is comprised of 18 items and Emotional Adjustment scale is comprised of 21 items. High scores on the inventory indicate high adjustment, whereas low scores indicate low adjustment. The test can be administered individually as well as on the group. There is no time limit; usually it takes 30-35 minutes for the completion. Two category of response “Yes” or “No” has been provided for answer to each item. High score indicates high adjustment. Where as low scores indicate low adjustment in different area of adjustment as well as adjustment taken as a whole.

For the present study, alpha reliability of the subscales of the Indian Adaptation of Bell’s Adjustment Inventory. The alpha reliability of the subscale home adjustment is .97, health adjustment is .97 and emotional adjustment is .96.

Procedure

The data was collected from different colleges of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The PAQ and Indian Adaptation of Bell’s Adjustment Inventory was given to only those adolescents whose both parents are alive. Respondents were strongly assured that their response to this research would be confidential. Then they were further told that this is just to investigate the impact of their parenting style in their overall adjustment.

Then PAQ and Indian Adaptation of Bell’s Adjustment Inventory was administered to them. They were instructed that there is no time restriction to answer these questions and they were further told that they are free to ask anything from the researcher without any hesitation if they find something confusing. They were also instructed to tick the column, which they consider right and not to leave any item unanswered. After completion, questionnaires were taken back from them and it was further assured that none of the column remained unfilled.

Results

Correlations and ¿-test was computed to see the relationship and differences between the variables. The results are as follow: First hypothesis that adolescents raised by authoritative parents will be more likely to have better home adjustment as compared with adolescents raised by authoritarian parents is supported by the results of the study.

For the third hypotheses, it was assumed that, adolescents raised by authoritative parents will be more likely to have better emotional adjustment as compared to the adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. The hypothesis was supported as the results were significant at. Results showed that that adolescents raised by authoritative parents have better emotional adjustment as compared to adolescents raised by authoritarian parents adolescents raised by authoritative parents have better home adjustment as compared to adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. Results also revealed that adolescents raised by authoritative parents have better health adjustment as compared to adolescents raised by authoritarian parents.

Discussion

Findings of the present study support earlier findings that the children of authoritative parents will have better home, health and psychological adjustment as compared with adolescents of authoritarian parents and the Authoritative parenting will have positive relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment.

The first hypotheses that adolescents raised by authoritative parents will have better home adjustment as compared to the adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. The finding supported the hypotheses.

Second hypotheses, which assumed that, adolescents raised by authoritative parents will have better health adjustment as compared to the adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. The finding supported the hypotheses as the results were significant. These findings are quite similar to the findings that were observed by Sydney (1963) she found that adolescents who may simply not take sensible care of themselves; that is, they do not eat, sleep or exercise sensibly. They find their relationships with parents lacking in satisfaction, and indeed, positively stressing. Chronic fatigue is also an outcome of unsatisfactory relationships between parents and children and adolescents feel difficult to escape.

In the third hypotheses, it was assumed that, adolescents raised by authoritative parents are more likely have better home, health and emotional adjustment as compared to the adolescents raised by authoritarian parents. The hypotheses were supported as the results were significant. The results of our study are also supported by different researchers (Lamborn, 1993; Nelson, 2000). They found that parenting is affected by a variety of factors including the relationship between a parent and their adolescent’s children, family functioning, and the residence of the family. It was found that adolescents with parents who were authoritative in their parenting style (highly demanding and highly responsive parents) had the best outcome behaviorally and emotionally. Authoritarian parenting (highly demanding and unresponsive parents) was associated with lack of social competence with peers, a tendency to withdraw instead of taking the initiative, low self-esteem, aggressive, stubborn and anxious. Higher levels of behavior problems and symptoms like withdrawn, shyness and stealing etc were also found in them. Authoritarian parenting control is associated with a myriad of negative outcomes throughout development (Peterson, & Hann, 1999; Stafford, & Bayer, 1993). Preschool-age children exposed to authoritarian parenting have been found to be unhappy, maladjusted, socially inhibited, aggressive, and experience difficulty in regulating emotions (Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003).

Authoritative parenting is likely to have positive relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment of adolescents. The finding supported the hypotheses. Results revealed that authoritative parenting have positive relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment of adolescents. Jacob (1999) and Kagan (2003) observed that adolescents whose parents adopt an authoritative parenting style are able to make their own decisions and make positive life strategies. Curiously though, these adolescents also make decisions and plans which are more satisfactory to their parents. They are close to their family and also seek help and guidance of their parents. Previous researches has explored whether or not these harsh parenting practices among Asian American parents really cause any harm to the child. Since Asian American culture supports strict discipline and overprotection of children (Chen, 1997) it is possible that since strict parenting is culturally accepted, therefore, has its own benefits within the culture. Although research has indicated that authoritative parenting yields the most stable child in Western cultures, it is possible that authoritative parenting may not have the same effects on Asian Americans since Asian Americans have completely different cultural norms which emphasize parental respect more than closeness and intimacy (Chao, 2001).

In the present study authoritarian parenting had negative relationship with home, health and emotional adjustment of adolescents. The hypotheses were supported as the results were significant. Harris, and Howard (1984) found that authoritarian parenting style is associated with the parents who are highly critical and rejecting and adolescents of such parents adopt a negative identity. They try to get their parents attention or to punish them through behaving sadly. Sadly, beneath the defiance is growing depression caused by their internalizing the rejection of their parents. They start hating their parents and try to avoid them. More use of smoking and alcohol is seen in these children. Malik (2005) in his study concluded that as parental conflict increased, functioning of the children is disturbed. Both parents and children are less attached with each other, lack of communication and adolescents have poorer social skills and helplessness. Children of authoritarian parents are found in chronic strain and tension and to reduce it they indulge themselves in risky behaviors and affect their health when parents act on feelings of resentment, anger, or enmity, the children become violent, shows anger in different ways and have more behavioral problems. They lack sympathy, psychologically irresponsible, low self-esteem, impaired self adequacy and negative world view. Because of all this psychological hurt, some adolescents become defensively autonomous (Jennifer, & Katherine, 2004; Dwairy, 2006).

In contrast with reports on the effect of authoritarian parenting in the West, some studies indicate that Arab children and youth are satisfied with this style (Hatab, & Makki, 1978) and do not complain of the abusive-aggressive behavior of parents (Dwairy, 1998). Among Egyptian college students, 64.4% of women and 33.1% of men favored “absolute sub-mission” to parents. As for differentiation from parents, 57.7% of female and 25.7% of male students favored children having the same character and morals as their parents (Al-Khawaja, 1999). In a study conducted among Saudi female college students, 67.5% of the sample reported that they were physically punished at different stages in their life. When their attitudes toward physical punishment were studied, it was found that 65.1% of the students justified it (Achoui, 2003). If these are the attitudes of college students, one can expect that similar or more pronounced results may be obtained in the general Saudi population, although Saudi society is considered among the conservative societies as compared to other Arab or Muslim societies. Generally speaking, female Arabs identify more than males with the traditional norms (Al-Khawaja, 1999) even when they are the victims of some of the norms, which is exemplified by the justification by females of female circumcision (Al-Kaa’ki, 2000). Despite that the Arab society treats women more strictly than men (Zakareya, 1999). Achoui (2003) found that male children undergo more physical punishment than female children in Saudi Arabia. Studies on Arab-Palestinian adolescents in Israel indicated that boys perceive their parents’ style to be more authoritarian than girls do (Dwairy, 2004a, 2004b).

Findings of present research are also consistent with the study conducted by Sharma (2006) which found positive associations between dimensions of authoritative parenting styles and behavioral problems of children.

Limitations

Comparatively bigger size of sample might give more extensive and more generalize able findings. Although the present study provides insight into impact of parenting in home, health and emotional adjustment during adolescence, there is room for further exploration of gender and age differences also the impact of permissive and neglectful parents in adjustment in different areas. It is suggested that future students conduct a research to assess gender and age differences and impact of permissive and neglectful parents for greater understanding of adjustment of adolescents. Qualitative research should be done so that researcher had better understanding of the nature of the problem and different aspects and dimensions of parenting styles. College students and other students studying in schools and universities should also be studied. Social adjustment of adolescents should also be studied in future researches.

Implications

Thus the present study is may help to improve parent’s sense of dealing with children and their adjustment so that they can lead a successful life. This study may help future researcher and the organizations working on children issues. Future research may be planned keeping in mind the limitations of the present study

NUMBER 3

CITATION

Echo, H. W. (2008, Fall). Parental influence on children’s talent development: A case study with three chinese american families. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 100-129,141. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/222361196?accountid=39859

This paper explores the influence of parenting beliefs and practices on children’s talent development through a specific perspective of several Chinese American families with gifted children. In-depth interviews were employed to collect data from the parents, and research questions focused on the daily practice of parenting and parents’ beliefs concerning how to nurture high achievement among children. Findings of this study include evidence of a sense of responsibility for parenting, a high level of confidence over their children’s future, and a mixed strategy of parenting that combines traditional Chinese parental expectations with an adopted Western notion of respect for a child’s own decision making.

Research indicates that there are a variety of issues, such as giftedness or innate ability, intrapersonal components, and various environmental factors, that may influence children’s talent development. Parenting is considered to be one of the most influential factors, especially in early childhood, as it is thought to contribute directly to the talented performance of children. According to research (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; Freeman, 2001; Rubin & Chung, 2006; VanTassel-Baska & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1989), parents and other significant family members play pivotal roles in the development of gifted and talented children, not only in nurturing the academic performance children but also in facilitating their social-emotional development (Feldman, 1999; Gross, 2004; Gross & Vliet, 2005; Moon, 2003; Nugent, 2005; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2002).

Literature on cultural matters in education has provided the premise that different cultures present different tools, habits, and assumptions that significandy influence human thoughts and behavior (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Thus, people from different cultural backgrounds may hold different beliefs about, and perceptions of, the role of parents and families, as well as different ideas about giftedness (Wu, 2006). In Asian countries, particularly in a Chinese context, innate ability is regarded as being less influential than factors like effort (Wu, 2005). Although self-effort and environmental factors have been paid much attention, it seems that in Western societies the importance of innate ability has been dominant and has influenced parents and others in their perceptions of learning and achieving (Wu, 2006). Such a focus on effort and hard work might be a unique feature among Chinese American people, as compared to general American parents who might pay more attention to the importance of innate ability. One would assume that Chinese parents who have lived in the U.S. for many years may combine their Chinese traditional beliefs and practices with what is valued in the American culture.

There is an abundance of research on culture and parenting styles and their influences on children’s academic outcomes, in and out of the U.S. (Chan & Moore, 2006; Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002a; Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997; Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998; Rubin & Chung, 2006; Stewart, Bond, Abdullah, & Ma, 2000; Wu et al., 2002). There has been little research, however, that has specifically focused on the beliefs and practices of parents of gifted Chinese American students. This is remarkable given the fact that some proportion of the high percentage of Asian American students in gifted programs in U.S. schools are Chinese (Kitano & Dijiosia, 2000; Plucker, 1996). Most of the existing studies have focused on Caucasian children and their families (Moon, Jurich, & Feldhusen, 1998), or on parenting related to Asian American children in general (Leung et al., 1998; Rubin & Chung, 2006).

This study investigates the otherwise largely unexamined area of parenting of gifted Chinese American students. The paper begins with a summary review of some major themes from traditional Chinese philosophy on learning and achieving and traditional views of the relationship between Chinese parenting styles and children’s outcomes. Data from in-depth interviews collected from three Chinese American families are then presented with evidence of daily parenting practices. This is followed by an analysis of several major themes that emerged from the conversations. Implications will be discussed at the end of the paper.

The Influence of Confucianism on Chinese Parenting

The rich, and in many ways unique, civilization of China, which developed through more than two thousand years of eventful history, owes more to the impress of Confucius’s personality and teaching than to any other single factor. (Smith, 1973, p. 9)

Throughout its history, China has been deeply influenced by Confucian philosophy and practices, not the least in its theories of learning and achieving. One might well expect this influence to appear in the parenting beliefs and practices of ethnic Chinese living in the U.S. and elsewhere today. For more than 2.5 millennia, Confucius (55 1-479 BC) has occupied a supreme place as the Great and Revered Teacher of the Chinese people. One of his key teachings was that of “Ren,” a word that conveys the notion of “a lifelong striving for any human being to become the most genuine, sincere, and humane person he or she can become” (Li, 2003, p. 146). To Confucius, “the goal for the individual is the development of personality until the ideal of a perfect man, a true gendeman, a sage is reached” (Smith, 1973, p. 60). According to Confucian philosophy, success is less the result of the individual’s innate ability than it is of the individual’s single-minded effort and consistent practice (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Indeed, Chinese people closely associate educational achievement or personal success with effort and hard work, with differences in ability mattering less than developing one’s potential to the fullest extent (Wu, 2005). This belief is a consistent theme of Confucius’ two books, The Analects and The Mean, and finds myriad parallels in Chinese sayings and literature wherever the topics are success and achievement. These wise sayings, or proverbs, uniformly underscoring the importance of effort and hard work, come from different dynasties and different parts of the country and have been standards conveyed through primers and textbooks for the young in almost every family in China for generations.

Some empirical and theoretical research (Chang, 1980; He & Chan, 1996; Lee, 1996) has provided evidence of the important influence of Confucian philosophy on Chinese thinking. He and Chan interviewed 50 Chinese professors and doctoral supervisors in China. The findings showed that the respondents believed that nonintellectual factors, such as effort, motivation, and volition, were the most important prerequisites for talented performance.

Many cross-cultural studies have found a bifurcation in the views of nature (i.e., success/failure due to innate ability) and nurture (i.e., success/failure due to effort) toward learning and achieving between the Asian and the Western. For example, a qualitative study revealed that Asian students tend to attribute success to effort and failure to lack of effort, while Westerners tend to attribute success and failure to ability and lack of ability, respectively (Watkins, 1996). Another study showed that success is more often attributed to ability in the U.S. while it is attributed to hard work in Asia (Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986). The cross-nationally calibrated IQ tests in this study show that Asian students have a much more rigorous curriculum, work at a faster pace, and study far more at school and at home. Gardner (1995) made the following comment:

Genetics, heredity, and measured intelligence play no role here. East Asian students learn more and score better on just about every kind of measure because they attend school for more days, work harder in school and at home after school, and have better-prepared teachers and more deeply engaged parents who encourage and coach them each day and night. Put succinctly, Americans believe (like Herrnstein and Murray) that if you do not do well, it is because they lack talent or ability; Asians believe it is because they do not work hard enough, (p. 31)

What has been explicitly indicated here is in accordance with the results of other studies demonstrating differences between the Asian and Western perspectives on learning and achieving.

A large cross-cultural project (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1996) conducted with children in elementary schools and kindergartens that examined academic achievement and motivation among Chinese students combined various methods, including achievement and cognitive tests, interviews with parents and teachers, and classroom observations. More than 20,000 students were included in this 12-year study. The findings provide evidence to support the widespread belief in the Confucian value that education is playing a critical role in people’s lives, especially in terms of providing the chance for a better living.

In the U.S., home environment and parental encouragement, along with the drive to save a family’s “face,” are all major issues that affect Asian American students’ achievement (Braxton, 1999). The high academic achievement of Asian Americans is frequently related to their cultural influences, and it seems that talented performance is a result of the interaction among immigration selectivity, higher than average levels of premigration and postmigration socioeconomic status, as well as ethnic social structures (Zhou & Kim, 2006).

Research on Chinese Parenting

Traditional Chinese thinking may have a pivotal role in determining the specific characteristics of Chinese parenting. According to this tradition, parents should be good role models for their children, parents should be involved in their child’s education, achievement is preponderantly the result of effort rather than innate ability, and high motivation and perseverance are very important in learning.

Research studies conducted both in and outside of China have examined the above issues through various lenses. For instance, results of a qualitative study (Chi, 2003) with parents interviewed in a rural village in China showed that the parents of high-achieving children were more involved in their children’s education and were more knowledgeable about their children’s school performance. A meta-analysis of research literature on parental involvement and children’s academic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001) showed a strong relationship between parents’ expectations and students’ educational performance. A study of gifted secondary school students in Hong Kong (Chan, 2005) found that the students themselves perceived family cohesion and parental expectations as consistently important predictors of their academic achievement. A study of primary school students and their parents in Mainland China (He, Shi, & Luo, 2006) showed that parents of gifted children had significantly higher scores than parents of nongifted children on three parenting dimensions: educational values, efficacy for their children, and parent-child interaction.

A considerable number of studies of parenting beliefs and behavior have been carried out with overseas Chinese. Those people who migrate to other parts of the world tend to retain much of their Chinese cultural influence and way of life (Bond, 1986). They are noted for having a strong identification with the culture of their place of origin, and there is a great degree of cultural homogeneity among Chinese people (Lai & Ishiyama, 2004). A study of immigrant Chinese parents in Canada (Lai & Ishiyama, 2004) showed that many expressed the desire to be involved in their children’s education, and they often regard education as the route to their children’s success in the future. Similarly, two studies in Australia have shown parents from Asian backgrounds have higher academic standards and higher aspirations for their children’s education, compared with AngloSaxon Australian parents. Another quantitative study (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002b) involved a survey of 239 Australian parents from Chinese, Vietnamese, and Anglo-Saxon cultural backgrounds. The results of this study suggest that parental expectation and support are important factors in facilitating children’s academic achievement. A study of immigrant Chinese parents in Australia (Tse, 2005) revealed that many parents have high expectations of their children’s performance at school, and Chinese Australian students try very hard to meet their parents’ expectations. Phillipson (2006) confirmed that Chinese children work hard to achieve high performance to fulfill parents’ and families’ expectations.

The literature on parenting styles and practices raises the issues of so-called authoritative versus authoritarian parenting styles. The wellknown parenting style typology of Baumrind (1971) identified three different patterns, or styles, of parenting, namely authoritarian (e.g., demand, control), authoritative (e.g., warmth, acceptance), and permissive parenting. Although Chinese parenting has commonly been described as more “authoritarian” or “controlling,” this presumption has been challenged by researchers who suggest that the notions of authoritarian and authoritative parenting do not reflect the Chinese cultural aspect of child rearing (Chao, 1994; Liu & Yussen, 2005), and Baumrind’s parenting typology does not capture the key features of Chinese parenting (Leung, 2005). Researchers argue that relationships between parenting styles and students’ academic achievement may differ from one culture to another and therefore may not be generalizable (Chao & Sue, 1996; Leung et al., 1998). Thus, it is understandable that the authoritarian parenting style, which is viewed negatively in Western cultures, has more positive effects and implications in traditional Chinese culture in which authoritarian parenting is perceived as a loving and concerned parenting style (Silverstein, 2000).

Generally speaking, the major themes derived from the literature concerning Chinese parenting include the emphasis on hard work and effort rather than on innate ability, the importance of parents’ involvement in children’s learning, and high expectations and academic standards for children. Although it is evident that Chinese people believe parental influence can make a big difference in their children’s talent development, there are many questions to be answered. For example, what are the beliefs and attitudes of Chinese American parents toward their children’s learning and achieving? What are the specific characteristics that these Chinese parents may have in their parenting practices in the U.S.? What is the role of parenting in their children’s high achievement at school? And, what implications, if any, can be drawn in order that parents can more effectively foster giftedness and nurture talented performance ? With the purpose of exploring the above questions, a qualitative study was conducted with parents from three families. The distinctive themes that emerged from the literature were used as a theoretical framework to guide the process of data collection as well as data analysis.

Research Design

Most of the studies conducted in the parenting area with Chinese American parents have used quantitative, variable-oriented approaches, have sought or focused on either some presumed causal relationship between parenting and children’s achievement or on the characteristic variables of parenting styles or patterns, and have sought determination and generalization from their findings. This study took a qualitative approach, using in-depth interviews to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the beliefs and practices of certain Chinese American families with gifted and talented children. In addition to the aim of a fuller understanding of the phenomenon under study, this study also sought possible extrapolation to or illumination of similar situations (Hoepfl, 1997).

In-depth interviews were selected as the primary data collection method because the more open format allows researchers to flexibly follow up on informants’ feelings and ideas, to probe responses, and to pursue unexpected or promising lines of inquiry (Bell, 1999). Qualitative research employs a naturalistic or interpretive paradigm that seeks to understand a phenomenon in specific, real-world settings where “the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest” (Patton, 2002, p. 39). Such studies can help researchers understand how participants explain a phenomenon in a particular context within which the participants function, as well as the impact of this context on their function (Maxwell, 2005). In the case of this study, the qualitative approach was suitable and helpful in understanding the functions of parenting of some Chinese families within an American context.

In order to determine the accuracy and credibility of the research findings, methods for establishing trustworthiness will be presented. Following Patton (2002), this study uses three methods to underwrite dependability and trustworthiness. First, I employed triangulation, specifically data triangulation (e.g., audiotapes and field notes), member checking, and theory triangulation (e.g., culture and discipline). Second, I am credentialed as a Chinese and a parent, I am a specialist trainer in gifted education, and I have connections with the participants and experience with the American context. Third, method, data, and findings are all analyzed with reference to contexts (Patton, 2002), rather than conclusion shopping, and with scrupulousness in following the evidence and adopting explanations that fit best.

The research questions are based on themes that arose from the literature, and each question was designed with reference to specific issues in the research. The interviews were conducted over the period of a month. After the first interview, questions were slightly adjusted or added in order to obtain more information in the following interviews. After the transcription of the interviews, all participants (except one who had become ill) were contacted with some followup questions and a copy of the field notes, in Chinese, to review and to provide feedback.

Method
Participants

The participants were five parents of Chinese American families who had been in the U.S. for more than 5 years, had children in a gifted and talented program or who were excelling in specific areas, and were accessible to me as a researcher. Three families were chosen from a university town where I had been living and studying. It was a convenience sample, and the families were deemed to be typical Chinese American families in the university town; they may not generally reflect Chinese American parents in the U.S. Although there might be individual differences in terms of parenting beliefs and practices, it was assumed that interviewing other Chinese American parents in the town might yield similar outcomes.

Each of the families had two children ranging in ages from 2 to 18 years old. This study focused on the approach to parenting the first child in each family. This was because the second child was often much younger and consequendy provided a more limited history for study, while the first child in each family was a high achiever at school and/or had demonstrated various talents. Of the three high-achieving children, two are girls and one is a boy. They were all enrolled in different county schools (one had recently graduated from high school), and all identified as gifted and participated in advanced classes or enrichment programs in their schools. I made contact with the families either at church or through friends. Consent forms were obtained, and a rigorous Institutional Review Board (IRB) process was conducted before the commencement of the study (IRB is a committee established to review and approve research involving human subjects). None of the children are involved direcdy in this study. All of the names used are pseudonyms.

Procedures and Sites

All of the interviews were conducted in Chinese (Mandarin), the mother tongue of all the participants as well as the researcher. With the permission of the participants, all interviews were audiotaped, and field notes were taken during the conversation. These field notes were detailed and condensed written records that contained subtitles or key words of the conversations; the interviewees’ tones, facial expressions, or body language; laughter, hesitation, or other gestures; as well as brief explanations of surroundings and contexts.

The participants were asked to complete a form about their demographic information and to answer several open-ended questions about their children (see Appendix A). The interviews were semistructured, led by broad probing questions, and supplemented with follow-up questions. The follow-up questions differed from one interviewee to another depending on the direction of the conversation. A list of questions was prepared in advance (see Appendix B).

The participants were contacted by phone to arrange the schedule for interviews. The preliminary plan of this study was to interview each parent individually. Jane’s father could not participate because he was working in another city; Qiang’s parents were interviewed together; and Mary’s parents and Jane’s mother were interviewed individually. Thus, there were a total of four interviews with five participants: two fathers and three mothers. The first interview was conducted with Jane’s mother at the researcher’s home, and it lasted 2 hours. This interview yielded a great deal of information and was helpful in adjusting the interview protocol.

The second interview was with Qiang’s parents. We met in their house on a weekend, and the interview lasted 90 minutes. The third interview was with Mary’s mother. The interview took place in an outdoor garden during a lunchtime break, and it took about 2 hours. The fourth and final interview was with Mary’s father Nan in his Chinese grocery store. It was a weekday morning, which was regarded by Nan as the “quietest” time during the week. The interview ranged over 3 hours but half of this time was taken up with clients or phone calls.

In retrospect, the first and the third interviews were the most productive. The two girls’ mothers were not at work, and the interviews took place in comfortable, relaxing environment free of interference or distractions. The second and the fourth interviews came with a few distractions, and the three interviewees were not always fully engaged in the interviews. However, further conversations with Hong and Nan on the phone and in the church provided some additional information. The interviewees were aware of the continuance of the data collection process.

Data Analysis

The data analysis employed methods of the qualitative approach, specifically a strategy recommended by Maxwell (2005) in which data collection and analysis were handled as two interacting steps of research. That is, data analysis followed the interview immediately and continued throughout the entire research project. This strategy allowed for revision and improvement of questions for subsequent interviews and for making data analysis at the later stage more efficient.

I transcribed the text verbatim and then translated it into English. Interview data were triangulated with the informal follow-up conversations. The data were then examined using open coding, a process for identifying themes and concepts, and then they were examined by using selective coding, a process for integrating and refining categories generated from open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Given that the purpose of this project was to explore the parenting beliefs and practices of the Chinese American families, the interview questions and the analysis of the data were guided by the theoretical framework that emerged form the literature, which focused mainly on three aspects: (a) concepts and beliefs about giftedness and talented performance; (b) family environment and parental involvement; and (c) parenting strategies and daily practice.

Results

The interviews reported in this study produced a wealth of material as to the beliefs and practices of the participants concerning parenting. The findings presented here, however, are only representative of this abundance and detail and address only the most distinctive themes and categories.

Case 1

Jane was an 8-year-old girl who had been living with her parents in the U.S. since she was 3 years old. Although she did not understand any English when she first came here, she had learned to read and write in English quickly and well. In third grade, she was tested and accepted by the only homogeneous/pull-out gifted class in the school district. She excelled especially in reading and writing. She was a quiet and mature little girl who enjoyed playing with children older than her. Her father was previously a research assistant in a medical laboratory in a university hospital who then became a researcher for a medical company and moved with his daughter to another town. Jane’s mother, Xian, was a homemaker until 1 year ago, when she became a part-time nursing student. She lived by herself in the university town during the weekdays and, on weekends, drove 2 hours to the city where her husband and Jane lived. Only the mother Xian was interviewed.

Interview With Xian. Jane’s mother, Xian, was 38 years old. She had come to the U.S. at age 33 with her husband Yu and daughter Jane. Her second child, a 3-year-old girl, was living with her grandparents in China. Xian was an energetic and proactive lady who seemed very familiar with her daughter’s school and teachers and was wellinformed about the life of the town. Xian was the one who primarily took care of Jane, especially her academic progress.

She offered this comment on giftedness: “I believe every child is gifted. I don’t think Jane is much smarter than other kids, but we try to help her develop good learning habits and get her interested in things.” Before Jane and her father moved to another city, Xian would spend some time with Jane every day doing extracurricular exercises such as writing brief essays; going to painting, swimming, or ballet classes; or arranging social activities for Jane and for herself. As a third grader, Jane had developed good reading habits. Sometimes she would read for 2 hours before being asked by her parents to go outside and play. Xian explained the development of Jane’s learning habits, which were gready influenced by a peer and by encouragement from parents:

The first year when we came here, Jane didn’t want to learn to speak English, and she didn’t want to read. We were quite worried. Then I found there was another Chinese girl in her class, and the little girl loved reading. I got to know the mother, and we arranged activities for the two girls. Jane was very much stimulated by her new friend, and she started to read books and did exercises and reading games we bought for her. After a year or so, she had no problem in reading and was even better than her classmates.

As with many Chinese parents, Xian used reinforcement strategies to encourage Jane on her reading and writing and for behaving well. Xian said, “At first I would reward her with stickers or points, but then Jane asked for money! She preferred to save the coins or nickels and then buy herself a nice present.”

When asked about the influence of American culture on her parenting, she said:

Many Chinese friends pay much attention to their children’s math. But I think since we’re living in the U.S., English reading and writing are also very important … I noticed that American parents don’t care much about their kids’ school reports. I wish I could be like that…. I try to communicate with her as if she’s an adult; at first this was quite difficult because all Chinese parents treat their child as a child. Ha ha. . .

Although Xian had put a lot of time and energy into Jane’s education, she believed that what she was doing could not even compete with many other Chinese families. “Lots of Chinese parents give too many things for their kids to do. I guess the American parents are better at this point.” But she explained, “It’s my responsibility. It’s the parents’ responsibility.” She said that parents needed to do their best for the children. “We provide her what we can, and we can see she’s nice to others and knows to do right things most of the time. So we don’t worry about her future too much. I believe she will do well.”

Case 2

Qiang, 12, was born in the U.S. 1 year after his parents moved from China. Qiang was in the advanced eighth-grade classes at school and played “First Violin” in the city’s Youth Orchestra. He was a happy, confident boy who described himself as a “book lover.” He was a striker for his school soccer team and played soccer on the weekends in different locations. Qiang’s father, Bao, was a faculty member in the university, but he was on long-term sick leave at the time he was interviewed. Qiang’s mother, Hong, was working in the university and their second son had just turned 2 years old. She was very busy taking care of her sick husband and two sons while working full time. Both parents from Qiang’s family were interviewed.

Interview With Bao and Hong. Qiang’s parents Bao and Hong came to the U.S. after living in Sweden for 2 years. They had been in the university town since 1 year before Qiang was born. They went to a Chinese church with their two children every Sunday, and Qiang had been serving in the church as one of the musicians who would accompany the songs in worship. Hong, the mother, was 41, and Bao, the father, was 45; both of them were working full time until Bao was diagnosed with cancer several months prior to the interview. Busy as she was, Hong still volunteered to cook for the church luncheon during the interview.

Hong and Bao both mentioned several times the importance of nurturing self-control and independent learning in Qiang. Probably due to the fact that they both were busy, Bao was sick, and the younger son needed much attention, they set up rules with Qiang and taught him to be independent and mature. They required Qiang to follow a daily routine for studying and other activities. Two evenings each week, Hong drove her son to violin lessons and to rehearsal in Youth Orchestra. She also drove him to soccer games or practice twice a week. On other days, she reported, “Qiang knows he needs to practice violin for half an hour every day before he starts to do anything else.”

When explaining his beliefs on parenting and expectations for Qiang, Bao said:

I don’t think my son is gifted, but we’re confident that he has his own advantages. He has the passion in music and soccer, so we provide him the chance to do those things. He’s got some good habits now, although it was difficult at first . . . We do not expect him to be very successful – being a good person is indeed successful! That’s why we took him to the church. He learned a lot there on how to become a good man. Actually we, as parents, are also learning from the church.

Normally, Chinese American people are not Christians before they leave China, but church has had a certain influence on Qiang’s family. For instance, despite Bao’s cancer, he and his family appeared calm and peaceful.

Hong mentioned her opinions of the difference between American and Chinese parenting styles,

Parenting instructions are surely different between Chinese and American people. Americans probably are more encouraging, and Chinese parents are more criticizing. Qiang was born in the U.S., and he’s certainly growing up in more of an American way. But we still try to keep those fine Chinese traditions in our family and want him to understand and even accept the precious Chinese culture.

Although they were not worried about Qiang’s academic and nonacademic achievement, Hong and Bao were both concerned that Qiang might not have enough opportunities to be with his peers or to make more good friends. Bao said, “He was quite happy by himself sometimes, but it’s very important to have some good friendship.” He admitted that involving Qiang in various activities was a way to help him develop social skills.

Case 3

Mary, 18, lived in China for a year before joining her parents in the U.S. at age 4. Mary was an outstanding student and had been admitted to a prestigious university as an Echols Scholar. She was a straight-? student since junior high school, a brilliant writer, and a talented pianist who had achieved a high level of performance in playing piano. She was planning to become a doctor. Mary’s father, Nan, had two master’s degrees, but he decided to open a Chinese grocery store in town and had been running the business for more than 10 years. Mary’s mother, Hui, was a doctor in one of the most prestigious hospitals in China before she came to study and work in the local university hospital.

Interview With Hui. Hui, age 45, was a successful, accomplished female scholar who came to the U.S. 15 years ago when she was sponsored by the Chinese government. She was very articulate, confident, and full of warmth. She had two daughters, the second of whom was 12 years old. I was left with the impression that Hui paid much attention to her children. She attributed her parenting style to her own mother whom she regarded as the best mom – a funny, encouraging, brave, and ambitious person.

In regard to giftedness and talented performance, she commented,

I think some kids have higher abilities than others when they are born, for example, in the areas of math, chess, music, or memory. But to me that’s not really important. I believe nurturing and developing talent and potential are more important. . . . The process of nurturing includes giving them a chance. You need to provide various opportunities for kids to try different things, otherwise you would not know whether they are interested in or good at one thing.

Because of her own experience, Hui had very strong opinions about training and practice. She believed they were very important, especially when a child was too young to understand what was good for him or her. She reported:

When Mary was little, she couldn’t understand why the other kids didn’t have to play piano every day. Sometimes I had to force her to practice. Mary is now so grateful for me to keep her learning piano. She has numerous comments from her peers saying that they are very regretful that their parents didn’t insist them to play an instrument when they were young!

Hui brought her children to church, where Mary found the best place to make friends and to grow up into a kind and responsible young lady. Although Hui had a mind full of traditional Chinese beliefs, after living in the U.S. for a long time, she was obviously comfortable combining Chinese tradition with the modern American environment.

Although I would be happy to see my children have good grades, like other Chinese parents, scores are not the number one thing for me to look at. I think their social-emotional health is more important. I encourage them to make lots of friends, which Mary really does very well … I provide them opportunities, but also give them flexibility and freedom. I quite appreciate some American parents’ parenting style they want their children to be happy, and that’s very important to me too. I want my children to have happy lives in the future.

Interview With Nan. Nan came to the U.S. to join his wife even though he had a prestigious job in the Chinese government before he left Beijing. He earned two master’s degrees in the U.S. and Canada and was well-known in town because everyone went to his store for Chinese groceries. The first thing he mentioned in the interview was, “I feel guilty about my children because I’m too busy to pay much attention to them!” Nan has a great memory, which was inherited by Mary. Similar to Hong, he did not think Mary was truly gifted. “She does very well in almost all the school subjects, but she doesn’t really specialize in anything.”

Nan believed parents needed to help children find their areas of interest, provide them with a healthy, optimal family environment, and give them guidance as well as confidence. He made similar comments to his wife about nurturance:

I think it’s very rare that a child would prefer study to play. We need to nurture them, to help them realize what is important for them. Sometimes you even have to force them, for instance, to play piano, or to do some other things good for them. I think it’s worthy to do so, since interest and passion can all be nurtured and developed through proper parenting instructions.

Nan thought it was important for parents to spend time with children, to be their friends, and to have good communication with them, qualities he regarded as lacking in himself. However, like his wife, Nan was confident in his daughters’ future. He felt, as parents, he and his wife were doing the right things for their children, and, as long as the children were listening and understanding, they would have a bright future. He pointed out the importance of being patient and of keeping children motivated and disciplined. “I think parenting is like molding a piece of clay. The child is raw clay, and parents need to be very careful and patient in making it a good statue.”

Nan was determined that his children would learn Chinese well, understand Chinese culture and tradition, and keep the essence and pride of being Chinese. However, he also accepted the fact that his daughters had been influenced in many ways by American culture, attitudes, and life styles. “Probably influenced by those superstars or the society, our second daughter claims that one of her dreams was to marry a rich man!” He mentioned that it was unfair to say that only Chinese culture was best, and he admitted that Chinese people needed to learn from Americans to be kind and charitable, “to do volunteer jobs, or to serve the public and to help people. That’s what Chinese lack.”

Analysis

Among the many issues that the parents reported, some were constantly mentioned or emphasized by all interviewees. For instance, all of the parents paid great attention to their children’s academic performance, but they did not care much about the children’s innate abilities, nor were they worried about their children’s future achievement. They were confident that their children could be talented in the future as long as they themselves were good parents. These participants believed it was the responsibility of all parents to encourage high achievement and to help their children fulfill their potential to the highest level.

Accordingly, the most distinctive themes that emerged from the data include (a) a high level of confidence for their children’s future, which is closely related to the parents’ beliefs about giftedness and talented performance; (b) a sense of responsibility to be a good parent, which is relevant to the emphasis on parental involvement and high expectations for children; and (c) a mixed parenting strategy of daily practices that combine Chinese and American culture.

A High Level of Confidence

Parents in the three families, especially those of Mary and Qiang, tended to have confidence in their children’s future and talent development. It seemed that the more a parent was involved in the children’s learning process, the higher the confidence level of the parent about the child’s future. Interestingly, such confidence was not based on the level of their children’s giftedness, or nature, but on the level of their achievement, or nurture.

The concepts of giftedness and talent development may have directly facilitated the confidence level of these parents. For instance, Xian’s beliefs about the distinctions between giftedness and talented performance reveal the value she places on nurturing a child’s potential. “Giftedness is out of my control, but talent is what can be assured if I am a good parent. Talent can be nurtured and developed, but giftedness might be wasted and turn out to be useless,” Jane’s mother said confidendy. She and her husband believed that every child has certain areas of advantage or giftedness, but such giftedness is not as important as having a family who can support and nurture the child’s potential properly.

The other parents believed that the process of learning, or the nurturance of talent, was more important than the nature of a child’s innate ability. This might have led to the fact that most of them were surprisingly confident about their children’s school achievement and future. These parents believed that as long as they were involved actively in their children’s learning process and they tried to be “good parents,” their children’s futures were more controllable, and the children would have more hope and possibility of achieving at higher levels.

Another explanation about the confidence of the parents may be related to these Chinese American parents’ own background. All of the parents, including Jane’s mother Xian, had high educational qualifications. They or their spouses had been capable enough to come to the U.S. to work or study, and they survived in a highly competitive university setting. This fact in itself might have provided a certain level of confidence, not only about their own lives or careers, but also naturally, about their children’s future. As mentioned in the literature review, Chinese students’ exceptional high performance may be a result of the interaction between immigration selectivity and their higher than average socioeconomic status (Zhou & Kim, 2006).

A Sense of Responsibility

It was uniformly expressed by all the parents that it is the parents’ responsibility to make sure their children have proper opportunities and a supportive environment in which to develop their talents and fulfill their potential. Even though both Bao and Nan, the two fathers interviewed, blamed themselves for not being able to spend much time with their children, they were grateful that their wives took good care of the children and the families.

A common stereotype of Chinese parents is that they are “pushy” and “controlling.” However, such a stereotype has indeed been challenged by researchers who suggest that this notion reflects a Western view of parenting. Chinese parents believe – and have been acculturated to believe – that they have the primary responsibility or accountability for their children’s school achievement, either academic or nonacademic. The more responsible and supportive they are, the higher the possibility of their children obtaining high achievement. This echoes a major idea of Confucian philosophy and San Zi Jing (Wisdom of Three Words), one of the most important literary works in Chinese history: Namely, that if a child is not achieving, it is probably the parents’ fault.

According to the interviews, all parents considered themselves as being concerned about their children’s education rather than pushy or controlling. They believed their children’s achievement might well be reflective of the extent to which the parents gave support. Particularly, they held the traditional beliefs that effort and hard work were vital to achieve high performance, and, because young children did not have the judgment and instinct to put effort into learning, it was the parents’ inescapable responsibility to encourage and direct children in order to nurture their talents.

For these parents, parenting responsibility involves participation and commitment to their children’s study and afterschool activities.

For instance, Jane’s parents took turns driving the daughter to ballet and swimming lessons, both of which Jane enjoyed very much; Qiang’s mother spent a few evenings accompanying her son to violin lessons or soccer practice and games; Mary’s mother put much effort into communicating with her daughter. All these were regarded as a responsibility of parenting and were accepted by the parents as natural duties.

A Combination of Chinese and American Parenting

All of the parents expressed their opinions about the difference between Chinese and American cultures. Although Qiang’s parents had been living in the U.S. for many years, they believed that their parenting beliefs and practices were still deeply influenced by Chinese traditions. Qiang’s parents considered themselves to be parenting in a “Chinese way”; nevertheless, they admitted that American culture might have had some effect on their lifestyles and even ways of thinking. This was especially the case when they were dealing with their son Qiang, who was born and grew up in the U.S. and who has taken on aspects of American culture. Similarly, although Mary’s parents believed they communicated with their two daughters in a Chinese way, the girls’ beliefs and behavior were, to some extent, more American than Chinese; the girls always had close friends and classmates around and might well be influenced by their American peers.

In contrast to China, America is a place with a variety of cultures, especially in a university town where students and scholars come from all over the world. It is unrealistic for these parents to rigidly adhere to their traditional culture without adopting, at least at certain points, the culture around them or adjusting their ideas or behaviors, particularly in the way they maintain relationships with children growing up in a different country. Younger generations are quick to settle in and accept the new environment. If parents cannot accept this point, it may lead to misunderstanding between the children and parents, and, even worse, it may hinder the further development of their children’s giftedness and talent.

Conclusion and Implications

Because this study is based on a small number of interviewees, the findings are tentative and must be tested for their generalizability. The study does provide some unique findings and also raises interesting questions for future studies.

The major findings focus on the parent’s confidence and sense of responsibility, both of which have arisen from the persistent belief that talented performance can be achieved by anyone striving for it rather than only by gifted children. These notions can be inspiring to all parents in a Chinese context, and, indeed, they also may have appeal to many people from other countries and cultural backgrounds. The implication is parents with children who have average ability can be more optimistic and confident of their children’s future, and they may have more control and influence than they think over their children’s future.

Parenting beliefs and values are varied in different ethnic groups or in different countries, and children’s high achievement is influenced in different ways by certain parenting beliefs and practices in different cultures. Although each culture may have its own value and advantages in terms of parenting styles and strategies, it will be a very interesting topic for researchers to find out in the future whether a combination or mixture of parenting strategies or patterns drawn from different cultures can provide more effective and efficient ways to nurture talented performance in children.

The questions for future studies include: What are the similarities and differences of parenting beliefs and practices between Chinese American parents and Chinese parents in Mainland China? What effect, if any, do the parents’ own educational backgrounds have on their beliefs and practices ? Is there any difference between fathers’ and mothers’ beliefs about their children’s talent development ?

One likely implication of this study is that traditional Chinese beliefs about parenting have been substantiated by the participant’s parenting practices and their children’s talent development. In return, the reality of their children’s high achievement reassures Chinese parents that being more involved in their children’s education and having higher expectations for their children can lead to a better chance for their children to succeed.

Considering the relationship between the high performance Chinese students in and outside of China and the strong parental and familial support that these students normally receive, it may be worthwhile for researchers to conduct more comprehensive studies pertinent to various topics concerning parenting. These issues include the influence of optimal family environment, the role of hard work and effort, and the pattern and nature of effective or “good” parenting practices that might be adaptable and feasible to the general population in various cultural contexts.

In summary, although parents should provide the most optimal family environment, maintain appropriate expectations for their children, stimulate their children’s motivation, get involved by giving more time and effort to the education of their children, and pay more attention to the parent-teacher relationship, the ultimate goal for all parents, including those of the gifted and talented, is to provide children with a happy childhood.

We must define the meaning of happiness for individuals with great talent. Too often we operate under the impression that conventional conceptions of happiness are universal in their appeal. Imposing this value on individuals with a drive to excel or create makes their lives more difficult. (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Arnold, n.d., p. 9)

NUMBER 4

CITATION

Rodriguez, C. M., PhD. (2010). Parent-child aggression: Association with child abuse potential and parenting styles. Violence and Victims, 25(6), 728-41. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/817784587?accountid=39859

The present investigation predicted that greater use of corporal punishment as well as physical maltreatment would be associated with child abuse potential and selected parenting styles. Three independent studies were examined, two with community samples and a third with a clinical at-risk sample of parents. Parents across all studies anonymously completed the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale to assess physical discipline and maltreatment, as well as the Parenting Scale to measure dysfunctional parenting styles. Findings support that overall parent-child aggression, as well as physical maltreatment behaviors specifically, were associated with child abuse potential. Parent-child aggression was also related to dysfunctional parenting styles, particularly an overreactive, authoritarian parenting style. Permissive parenting was also identified as potentially associated with physical maltreatment, although the findings regarding such lax parenting styles are less clear. Intriguing findings emerged regarding the connection of psychological aggression to both child abuse potential and dysfunctional parenting style. Child abuse potential was also associated with dysfunctional parenting style, particularly harsh, overreactive approaches. Recommendations for future study with at-risk samples and additional research on permissive parenting and psychological aggression are discussed.

Keywords: child maltreatment; child physical abuse; disciplinary style; parent-child conflict; parenting style

In 2006, over 900,000 children were substantiated victims of child abuse and neglect in the United States, and physical abuse constituted 16% of those reports (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services [DHHS], 2008). Others estimate that physical abuse may actually range from over 23% (King, Trocme, & Thatte, 2003) up to nearly 30% of all cases of child maltreatment (Jones & McCurdy, 1992). More troubling are estimates based on anonymous parent report that severe physical assault toward children is in fact 5-11 times greater than official reports (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). Thus, physical abuse remains a critical concern even considering only those cases that rise to the exacting substantiation standards of child protective services, an agency that received an estimated 3.3 million referrals in 2006 (DHHS, 2008) while simultaneously witnessing steady declines in rates of substantiation (see King et al., 2003, for discussion).

Physical child abuse is typically defined as non-accidental injury to a child (Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption and Family Services Act of 1988), implying the resultant harm was intentional. However, physical abuse often arises when parents unintentionally escalate their administration of physical discipline (Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1983 ; Whipple & Richey, 1997). Physical discipline has been defined as “the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child’s behavior” (Straus, 2000, p. 1110). Physical discipline toward children is virtually universal in this country, with nearly 94% of American parents indicating they had employed physical discipline by the time their child was 3 or 4 (Straus & Stewart, 1999).

Distinguishing between physical abuse and physical discipline is both challenging and controversial. In a review of 8,000 substantiated cases of physical abuse, injurious and non-injurious child maltreatment were comparable with regard to child, parent, and socioeconomic characteristics (Gonzalez, Durrant, Chabot, Trocme, & Brown, 2008). Parents who are physically abusive also apply excessive, unreasonable physical discipline toward their children (Veltkamp & Miller, 1994 ; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). Parent-child aggression has been linked to negative behaviors in the recipients, whether the parental behavior is expressed as child abuse (e.g., Edwards, Holden, Felitti, & Anda, 2003 ; Runyon, Deblinger, Ryan, & Thakkar-Kolar, 2004) or corporal punishment (e.g., see Gershoff, 2002, for review). Consequently, a number of researchers recommend any form of physical parent- child aggression be conceptualized on a physical discipline-child abuse continuum (Graziano, 1994 ; Greenwald, Bank, Reid, & Knutson, 1997 ; Rodriguez & Richardson, 2007 ; Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer, & Rosario, 1991 ; Straus, 2001a, 2001b ; Whipple & Richey, 1997), with mild physical discipline at one endpoint and extreme physical abuse at the other; harsh physical discipline could thus escalate to abuse somewhere along the continuum.

Given such a conceptualization, research relying on confirmed perpetrators of physical abuse would provide insight to a valuable endpoint of the continuum but a potentially restricted component of parent-child aggression. Maltreatment may be undetected by or unreported to protective services (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996), and the complex process of substantiation (King et al., 2003) typically yields high false negative rates (see DeGarmo, Reid, & Knutson, 2006, for discussion). Parents identified by protective services likely represent a selective, potentially atypical, fraction of those engaging in abusive parent-child aggression. Moreover, conclusions founded solely on substantiated perpetrators are not optimal when considering approaches intended to prevent abuse. Many abused children never encounter the social services system, and in order to better prevent child abuse, studying those not identified by the system (either low risk or at-risk) can provide a glimpse into how sub-abusive discipline can escalate to child abuse further along the continuum.

One popular line of research concentrates on pinpointing those beliefs and characteristics predictive of a parent’s risk to physically maltreat a child (Milner, 1986, 1994), estimating the likelihood a parent will become abusive. This likelihood, termed child abuse potential, is estimated by such measures as the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI) which incorporates interpersonal and intrapersonal difficulties as well as inflexible attitudes regarding children observed in parents who physically abuse their children (Milner, 1986). Scores on the CAPI distinguish substantiated child abusers from comparison groups (Milner, Gold, & Wimberley, 1986) and predict which parents are likely to become abusive (Milner, Gold, Ayoub, & Jacewitz, 1984). CAPI scores also demonstrate an association with observed coercive parenting styles (Haskett, Scott, & Fann, 1995 ; Margolin, Gordis, Medina, & Oliver, 2003).

Although the CAPI (Milner, 1986) is widely regarded as a leading instrument to assess child abuse risk, the measure does not explicitly elicit any information regarding actual discipline practices in general or maltreatment behaviors in particular. Indeed, as noted above, the CAPI taps a range of personal issues and attitudes toward children that are characteristics of abusive parents. In contrast, epidemiological surveys have utilized such instruments as the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) to determine the frequency of actual behaviors implemented toward children during parent-child conflict. Remarkably little research has yet evaluated the association between child abuse potential and reports of actual parent-child physical aggression, either increased use of physical discipline or physically abusive behaviors. One study utilizing a modified earlier version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) determined if child abuse potential was related to a parent’s personal history of maltreatment (Caliso & Milner, 1992), but one’s own aggressive behavior toward a child was still not assessed. Although measures of child abuse potential should relate to parent-child physical aggression, their actual association has not been studied empirically.

Furthermore, relatively little research has evaluated the connections between parenting styles and child abuse potential or parent-child aggression. Baumrind’s (1966) classic conceptualization of parenting style characterizes parental control as generally manifest in three broad styles: permissive (in which the parent exerts minimal control over the child with few demands); authoritarian (in which the parent enforces control of the child by ensuring unquestioned adherence to absolute standards); and authoritative (in which adherence to rules is a cooperative endeavor between parent and child but the parent remains firm in setting standards). Although authoritarian parenting style appears potentially beneficial in some ethnic minority groups (e.g., African American and Chinese American families; Baumrind, 1972 ; Chao, 1994), authoritative parenting is typically considered optimal whereas permissive and authoritarian parenting are generally construed as dysfunctional approaches (Baumrind, 1966, 1996).

Conceptually, authoritarian parenting would be expected to relate to child abuse risk, supported by empirical research that observational indices of authoritarian parenting are associated with child abuse potential scores (Haskett et al., 1995). Likewise, although parenting style was not measured specifically, child abuse potential was positively associated with coercive parenting approaches and negatively associated with sensitive and consistent parenting in a community sample of parents (Margolin et al., 2003). Overall, however, the pattern of associations between actual physically abusive behavior and physical discipline, child abuse potential, and different disciplinary styles has not yet been adequately clarified. Indeed, although researchers in this field are more apt to concentrate on authoritarian styles, permissive parenting styles are also considered problematic (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993 ; Baumrind, 1996) but the literature has not yet explored how permissive styles may relate to child abuse potential. Permissive parenting which results in minimal oversight could conceptually be consistent with neglectful parenting. Given that neglect is often identified in families who engage in physical abuse (DHHS, 2008), it is possible abuse risk relates to permissive parenting styles as well, particularly because the personal issues and attitudes captured by the CAPI may not be unique to physical abuse.

Presumably, parent-child aggression, in the form of both frequent physical discipline and physical maltreatment, would be expected to relate to increased physical child abuse potential and dysfunctional parenting styles. Therefore, the purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate whether child abuse potential, parent-child discipline and abuse, and dysfunctional parenting styles (particularly more authoritarian approaches) would be intercorrelated. Furthermore, parents engaging in parent-child aggression indicative of child maltreatment specifically were expected to demonstrate greater child abuse potential and more maladaptive disciplinary styles. Such associations would provide additional construct validity for the leading measure of abuse risk, the CAPI, as well as lending some insight into how abuse risk and parent-child aggression relate to differing parenting styles. To evaluate these hypotheses, three independent studies were examined, two with low-risk community samples of parents and a third with a clinical at-risk sample of parents of children with externalizing behavior disorders (given that children with behavior problems exhibit behaviors resulting in more frequent discipline incidents that exacerbate abuse risk; Wolfe, 1999).

METHODS

Instruments across All Studies

The Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI; Milner 1986) includes 160 statements to which respondents agree or disagree. Designed to screen for physical child abuse, the CAPI assesses rigidity and intrapersonal and interpersonal difficulties characteristic of identified physically abusive parents. Only 77 items comprise the Abuse Scale score and its six underlying factors, with the remaining statements serving as items for experimental scales or as measures of distortion biases. The factors within the Abuse Scale include: Distress, Rigidity, Unhappiness, Problems with Child and Self, Problems with Family, and Problems with Others.

With regard to internal consistency of the Abuse Scale score, the CAPI manual reports split-half reliability ranging from.96 (for control groups) to.98 (for abuse groups) and Kuder- Richardson reliability coefficients ranging from.92 (for control groups) to.95 (for abuse groups), suggesting high internal consistency for community, at-risk, and abusive samples (Milner, 1986). Retest reliabilities range from.91 after one day to.75 after 3 months (Milner, 1986). In terms of predictive validity, studies have indicated a correct classification rate of 81.4% of confirmed child abusers and 99% of comparison parents, with an overall pattern indicating that a lower cut-off score leads to classification rates in the low-90s% range and that a higher cut-off score leads to greater false-negatives of child abusers (Milner, 1994).

The Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) is a revision of an epidemiological survey of family violence, the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). The CTSPC contains 22 items in which a parent reports on the frequency with which they have engaged in a series of behaviors arising from parent-child conflicts (response categories as follows: 0 = this has never happened; 1 = once in the past year; 2 = twice in the past year; 3 = 3-5 times in the past year; 4 = 6-10 times in the past year; 5 = 11-20 times in the past year; 6 = more than 20 times in the past year; 7 = not in the past year, but it happened before). Responses are scored based on the frequency range reported by the parent: responses of 0, 1, and 2 correspond to scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively; a score of 4 (the midpoint) is assigned for a parent selecting the 3-5 times category; a score of 8 is assigned to the 6-10 times category; a score of 15 is assigned for the 11-20 times category; and a score of 25 is given for the final category, 20 or more times in the past year.

Thirteen of the CTSPC items directly address varying levels of physical tactics applied toward children, comprising a subscale entitled Physical Assault (with subcategories of minor assault/corporal punishment, severe assault/physical maltreatment, and very severe assault/severe physical maltreatment). Given the subcategories, actions tapped by the Physical Assault subscale range from spanking, slapping, or pinching up to beating or burning. In addition to the Physical Assault subscale, four items of the CTSPC comprise the Non-Violent Discipline subscale (including such actions as removal of privileges and “time-out”) and five items contribute to the Psychological Aggression subscale (involving such behaviors as verbal threats and yelling). Although the CTSPC Physical Assault scale was of most interest, some intriguing results emerged regarding the Psychological Aggression scales and will be reported and discussed. In addition to analyses using the three subscales, physical maltreatment in particular was isolated by computing a classification score based on parents’ report of ever using any of severe assault/physical maltreatment (three items) or very severe assault/severe physical maltreatment (four items) behaviors; respondents indicating that they had engaged in any of the seven maltreatment items were categorized in a CTS Maltreatment group whereas those reporting none of these behaviors were categorized in a CTS No Maltreatment group.

Straus and colleagues (1998) report moderate internal consistency at.55 for the Physical Assault scale,.60 for the Psychological Aggression scale, and.70 for the Nonviolent Discipline scale. These moderate reliability coefficients likely reflect the diverse behaviors included in the measure as well as the very low reported frequency of many of the items (Straus et al., 1998). The authors provide supportive evidence of construct and discriminant validity, and some indication of modest correlations among subscales (Straus et al., 1998).

The Parenting Scale (Arnold et al., 1993) was utilized to identify parents’ dysfunctional parenting styles. Thirty items present parents with a typical parent-child conflict situation and asks them to indicate their response to the situation along a 7-point scale, with two opposing reactions at endpoints of each scale. The Parenting Scale yields a Total score intended to indicate overall dysfunctional parenting style. Based on the original factor analysis (Arnold et al., 1993), this general dysfunctional parenting style subsumes three separate response styles: Overreactivity (representing a harsh, angry discipline style, consistent with an authoritarian parenting style), Laxness (reflecting a permissive style of parenting), and Verbosity (in which parents rely on verbal persuasion even when ineffective). However, a subsequent normative sample with 785 parents of 2- to 12-year-old children (Collett, Gimpel, Greenson, & Gunderson, 2001) indicated that a new factor analysis did not support a separate Verbosity factor. Consequently, for the purposes of the present study, the Overreactivity and Laxness subscales were targeted as the most potentially meaningful parenting styles to test the hypotheses. Scores are computed by summing across items for the scale and dividing by the number of items, with higher scores indicative of more dysfunctional parenting styles. An example of an Overreactivity item would offer a prompt, such as “When my child misbehaves” and then asks the parent to select between, “I handle it without getting upset,” versus, “I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I’m upset.” An example of a Laxness item would prompt, “When I say my child can’t do something” followed by the two choices, “I let my child do it anyway,” versus, “I stick to what I said.”

Internal consistency reported by the test authors for the Total score is moderately high at.84, with Laxness and Overreactivity at.83 and.82, respectively (Arnold et al., 1993), which are comparable to those reported in the more recent normative study (Collett et al., 2001). Over a 2-week period, test-retest reliability was relatively high for the Total, Laxness, and Overreactivity scores, at.84,.83, and.82, respectively (Arnold et al., 1993). In addition, scores were significantly related to clinical observations of parent-child interactions (Arnold et al., 1993).

Study 1

Participants. In the first study, 327 parents of children younger than 12 responded to an online parenting study. The mean age of these parents was 30.48 years (standard deviation [SD] = 6.22 years), with the majority of respondents female (84%), married (91%), with an average of 1.89 children (SD = 1.1). Respondents identified themselves as Caucasian (84.7%), African American (5.2%), Hispanic (4.0%), Asian (3.7%), American Indian/ Alaskan Native (1.2%), or Other (1.2%). The mean annual family income was $54,299, with a median of $45,000 that likely more accurately represents the sample because of some outliers. Participants reported on their highest educational attainment: 1.5% not high school graduates, 18.7% high school graduates, nearly 30% with some college or vocational degree, 37% college degree, and 12.8% graduate school.

Procedures. Study procedures were approved by the university institutional review board. Selected World Wide Websites devoted to parenting (e.g.,

www.ibaby.com

, www.

parentsoup.com

www.parenting.com

) were targeted for an online parenting study. Links to a webpage for the parenting study were advertised on bulletin boards at these sites. Interested parents linked to the study website, which first presented them with an online consent form. Participants were then presented with a series of measures, including the CAPI, Parenting Scale, and CTSPC, which they could complete anonymously. Upon completion of this 60-minunte study, respondents received a gift certificate code for $5 redeemable toward the purchase of an item sold online. Each participant’s data was independently screened for accuracy and consistency in responding, with any questionable or incomplete files purged from the data set. For example, any respondent who obtained an elevated score on any of the three CAPI response bias indices was purged from the dataset (n = 38). Any files judged remotely questionable (uniform responding on any measure; n = 24) or largely incomplete (n = 8) were also removed from the data set, yielding 327 verified participants eligible for analyses with complete data on these three measures.

Study 2

Participants. Participants in this second community sample were 115 parents of children between ages 7 and 12; mothers (n = 86) and fathers (n = 29) were recruited for a larger parenting study conducted in a session in their home. The mean age of parents was 37.62 years (SD = 7.91 years), and the majority of parents in this sample (83.5%) reported they were living with a partner, with an average of three children. Based on self-identification, 92.2% described themselves as Caucasian, 6.1% as Hispanic, approximately 1% as Native American, and about 1% as “Other.” The mean annual family income was $50,067 per year, with a median of $45,000. Nearly all participants (93.9%) reported graduating from high school, with 7.8% no education past high school; 46.1% reported they attended voca tional school or some college, 28.6% obtained a college degree, and 11.3% reported a graduate school degree.

Procedures. The study protocol was approved by the university institutional review board and the local school district. Parents in this second study were recruited from their child’s school from notices/consent forms sent home about a study on factors affecting parenting and discipline. Interested parents returned a contact information sheet from which a 90-minute session was scheduled in their home for them to complete the larger study on a laptop computer. By using a computer, the participants were able to enter their responses to the questions anonymously and efficiently. Part of this study included the CAPI, the Parenting Scale, and the CTSPC, which were extracted for the present analyses. Parents received $10 as compensation for their time involved participating in this larger study.

Study 3

Participants. A clinical sample of parents constituted the third sample, with participants from a parenting study focusing on mothers of 7- to 12-year-old children with diagnosed externalizing behavior problems. In this study, 74 mothers participated, with a mean age of 40.65 years (SD = 10.53 years). Of these parents, 71.6% reported they were currently living with a partner, and they had an average of three children in the home. Based on self-report, the majority of the sample was Caucasian (82.4%), with 12.2% of Hispanic origin, 2.7% American Indian/ Alaskan Native, 1.4% African American, and 1.4% Asian. The mean annual family income was $41,016, with a median of $35,000. Most of the sample had graduated from high school (83.6%); 22% had no education beyond high school, 43.2% obtained vocational training or some college, 12.2% attained a college degree, and 5.4% attained a graduate degree.

Procedures. Study procedures were approved by the university institutional review board. Mothers were recruited from flyers distributed to mental health agencies and school psychologists working with children with behavior problems. Participants for this parenting study had to be a mother of a child age 5-12 who was receiving mental health services for a diagnosed externalizing behavior problem. Interested parents meeting these criteria were scheduled for a 2-hour session in their home for a larger parenting and discipline study of at-risk children. Parent responses were entered anonymously onto a laptop computer, with the series of questionnaires including the CAPI, the Parenting Scale, and the CTSPC. Mothers received $20 for participating in this larger study.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses: Comparison to Previous Norms and Correlations

All statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS for Windows 15.0 statistical package. Means and standard deviations for the three measures for all three studies appear in Table 1. The obtained sample CAPI Abuse Scale means in Studies 1 and 2 were comparable to the normative sample mean of 91.0 reported in the manual (Milner, 1986), with 14.5% of sample 1 and 15.2% of sample 2 obtaining scores above the clinical cut-off. In contrast, the sample of parents raising children with behavior problems in Study 3, considered an at-risk sample, obtained scores on the CAPI Abuse Scale significantly higher than the normative mean (t (73) = 5.16, p ≤.001). Although definitive normative means are not reported by the test authors for the Parenting Scale scores (Arnold et al., 1993), the obtained scores for the community samples in Studies 1 and 2 are comparable to those reported in the normative study (individual means per school grade are reported, ranging from 2.77 to 2.94; Collett et al., 2001). In contrast, Parenting Scale scores for Study 3 were comparable to those reported by the test authors for a clinical sample of mothers raising behavior problem children (M = 3.1; Arnold et al., 1993). For the CTSPC, the epidemiological results present mean scores on the Physical Assault, Psychological Aggression, and Non-Violent Discipline scales only for those who had engaged in at least one of the behaviors in the past month (Straus et al., 1998). Consequently, those means would be considerably higher than those obtained in the present investigation’s three studies. For comparison purposes, however, the epidemiological means were 46.0 for Non-Violent Discipline, 21.7 for Psychological Aggression, and 13.4 for Physical Assault (Straus et al., 1998).

Although not part of the research questions for this paper, the correlations between the Parenting Scale Overreactivity and Laxness Scales ranged from r =.33 and.38 (both p <.001) for the two community samples of Studies 1 and 2, consistent with other community samples (r =.36; Prinzie, Onghena, & Hellinckx, 2007); for the Study 3 at-risk sample, the association between the two Parenting Scale scores was r =.62 (p <.001); although generally not reported, one study that included parents raising hard to manage toddlers reported a correlation of r =.58 (Slep & O'Leary, 1997). With regard to correlations within the CTSPC, Physical Assault scores correlated with the Non-Violent Discipline scores ranging from r =.08 to.26 and with the Psychological Aggression scores from r =.27 (p <.05; Study 3) to.62 (p <.001; Study 2); the Non-Violent Discipline scores were correlated with the Psychological Aggression scores ranging from r =.21 (p =.07) to.37 (p < .001). Correlations between the scales of CTSPC have not been traditionally reported and are greatly impacted by sampling characteristics.

Correlational Analyses

Correlations among the measures were examined (see Table 1). Given the number of correlations of interest, a more conservative significance level of.01 per study was adopted for these analyses.

CAPI and Parenting Scale Correlations. An examination of the pattern of these relationships indicates that across the three samples, CAPI Abuse Scale scores were significantly positively correlated with Parenting Scale scores (Overreactivity and Laxness). However, the CAPI Abuse Scale scores appear to be more strongly correlated with Overreactivity than with Laxness scores, with the exception of the third study sample. Indeed, for Study 1, the CAPI Abuse Scale correlation with Overreactivity was significantly stronger (T 2 = 6.62, p <.001) than the CAPI correlation with Laxness (based on Steiger's [1980] recommendations regarding Williams' formula for comparing dependent correlations). Similarly, for Study 2, the difference between the CAPI Abuse Scale-Overreactivity and CAPI Abuse Scale-Laxness correlations were also significantly different (T 2 = 2.74, p <.01). Only the third sample of at-risk parents demonstrated an association between CAPI Abuse Scale and Laxness (r =.49) virtually equivalent to the CAPI Abuse Scale association with Overreactivity (r =.50).

CAPI and CTSPC Correlations. With respect to the association between the CAPI and the CTSPC scales, across all three studies, abuse potential was not significantly correlated with reported CTSPC Non-Violent Discipline tactics. Interestingly, the overall pattern of associations suggests the CAPI Abuse Scale scores were related to reported use of Psychological Aggression virtually comparable to the use of Physical Assault actions.

CTSPC and Parenting Scale Correlations. Turning to the associations between the Parenting Scale and the CTSPC, Parenting Scale scores were not significantly related to the CTSPC Non-Violent Discipline items. However, for the at-risk sample of Study 3, more use of permissive parenting approaches was marginally associated with lower use of CTSPC Non-Violent discipline tactics (marginal given the reduced significance level). Across all three studies, Parenting Scale Overreactivity scores were significantly associated with the general parent-child aggression assessed by the CTSPC Physical Assault scale. Furthermore, across studies the Parenting Scale Overreactivity scores were also significantly associated with the CTSPC Psychological Aggression, in all cases of higher magnitude than with the Physical Assault scale. The Parenting Scale Laxness scores were not significantly correlated with either the CTSPC Physical Assault or Psychological Aggression scales across all three studies (although for the at-risk sample of Study 3, Laxness was marginally associated with greater frequency of physical assault behaviors).

Maltreatment Classification Group Differences

Parents were classified into maltreatment groups based on their responses to only the maltreatment items on the CTSPC. Differences between these two groups for each study appear in Table 2. For Study 1, 6.1% of the sample endorsed at least one item of maltreatment. Those parents classified into the Maltreatment Group obtained significantly higher CAPI Abuse Scale scores and Parenting Scale scores than those who reported no instances of administering physical maltreatment toward their children. For Study 2, 20% of the parents in this community sample were classified into the Maltreatment Group. Those parents indicating they had engaged in any physical maltreatment obtained higher CAPI Abuse Scale scores and higher Parenting Scale Overreactivity scores than those who did not report such tactics. The obtained difference between the two groups was in the expected direction for the Parenting Scale Laxness scores, but was only marginally significant (p =.067). In Study 3, 17.6% of parents were classified into the Maltreatment Group. Again, the Maltreatment group differed from the No Maltreatment Group on the CAPI Abuse Scale and the Parenting Scale Overreactivity scores but not on the Laxness scores.

DISCUSSION

The current investigation included three independent studies to evaluate the connections among child abuse potential, physical discipline and child abuse, and dysfunctional parenting style. Two studies involved lower risk community samples whereas the third study involved an at-risk group of parents. Overall, the results suggest a pattern of associations whereby parent-child physical aggression in various forms is associated with both dysfunctional parenting style (particularly more authoritarian approaches) and child abuse potential.

Across all studies, reported physically aggressive behavior in general, inclusive of corporal punishment, was significantly associated with increased child abuse potential. Furthermore, parents who reported they had engaged in behavior that would be considered physical maltreatment obtained significantly higher CAPI scores than those who did not report ever using any of those tactics. These findings lend support to the construct validity of the CAPI and are consistent with findings regarding the ability of the CAPI to distinguish physically abusive parents and predict future abuse (Milner, 1994). Consequently, child abuse potential appears associated with the actual reported use of corporal punishment in addition to physical maltreatment behaviors specifically.

Similarly, as hypothesized, results from all three studies suggest that overall parent- child aggression is related to dysfunctional, overreactive, authoritarian parenting. Similar results were obtained in the comparison of those parents who had engaged in some type of physical maltreatment behavior versus those who had not. In contrast, parent-child aggression in general was not significantly correlated with permissive parenting approaches in any of the samples. However, an examination of group differences for those parents who specifically engaged in maltreatment behaviors indicated that lax parenting was indeed more frequently reported in the first community sample but only marginally in the second community sample. Given that permissive parenting is considered problematic (Baumrind, 1966, 1996), notably with respect to behavior problems (Arnold et al., 1993), it is intriguing to find the marginal correlation of permissive parenting style to general parent-child aggression observed only in the at-risk sample of parents raising children with behavior problems. The reduced power in this last sample may complicate identifying significance. However, it may be this finding reflects that parents raising children with behavior problems are inconsistent, vacillating between permissive and overreactive discipline strategies (as evidenced by their strong correlation in that sample). Overall, this pattern does suggest that greater inquiry into the link between permissive parenting practices and parent-child aggression may be warranted, especially in at-risk samples.

Interestingly, although not the main focus of this investigation, across all three samples, greater child abuse potential was also significantly associated with parents’ use of psychological aggression although not with the use of non-violent discipline. This connection of the CAPI (which targets physical abuse risk) to psychological aggression likely underscores the intersection between instances of physical maltreatment and psychological maltreatment (e.g., Claussen & Crittenden, 1991). Yet it is also notable that dysfunctional parenting style scores (namely Overreactivity) were more strongly related to psychological aggression than with parent-child physical aggression. Given that earlier studies have linked parental verbal aggression to psychosocial problems in children (e.g., Vissing, Straus, Gelles, & Harrop, 1991), further study of psychological aggression may prove insightful to understanding the correlates of emotional maltreatment (see Glaser, 2002, for review of emotional abuse). Potentially, an authoritarian parenting style may involve psychological aggression tactics that precede and escalate into physical discipline encounters. An interesting avenue for future research could pursue investigating such a progression, although the design of such a study would be admittedly challenging.

Additionally, as anticipated, greater child abuse potential was also significantly associated with dysfunctional disciplinary style across the studies. For the two community samples, this association largely reflected the strength of an overreactive, authoritarian discipline style, consistent with prior research (e.g., Haskett et al., 1995 ; Margolin et al., 2003). However, for the third at-risk clinical sample, child abuse potential was also strongly associated with a lax discipline approach. As noted earlier regarding the findings on parent-child aggression, perhaps for at-risk samples both authoritarian and permissive dysfunctional parenting styles are associated with abuse risk. The nature of some of the personal problems and attitudes captured by the CAPI items could readily be associated with more neglectful parenting, which is consistent with the under-involved, permissive approach tapped by the Parenting Scale Laxness scale. Future studies should consider whether other at-risk parents demonstrate a similar pattern of abuse risk relating to harsh as well as permissive discipline styles.

A number of limitations to the present study should be acknowledged. Although the current investigation drew from three separate samples of parents in order to minimize the limitations of a single given study, all three are limited by their reliance on parental self-report. All of the studies obtained information from parents anonymously but parents’ responses may still be susceptible to underreporting. Therefore, some of these findings may actually reflect conservative estimates of physical discipline use, maltreatment, and abuse risk. Optimally, a study that involves child abuse potential, discipline style, and parent- child aggression could be supplemented by observations of parent-child behavior (e.g., see Haskett et al., 1995 study of abuse potential and observations), although self-report for such constructs is typical because of the inherent difficulty of observing such behaviors. Furthermore, data were gathered from a single source (the parent), which may amplify observed associations. Nonetheless, meaningful distinctions were detected among different parenting styles and aggression types using three measures with no item overlap.

In addition, the nature of the individuals who participated across studies should also be considered given that, despite compensation for participation, the samples involved parents who were willing to participate in a research study. Again, this issue may have led to more conservative estimates of the variables of interest. Yet a considerable minority of the first two community samples obtained clinically elevated CAPI scores, suggesting that abuse risk is apparent even among populations not identified as at-risk (e.g., as compared to Sample 3). Moreover, greater ethnic diversity in the sample distribution should be a goal in future research, and the online sample of the first study appears relatively better educated than either of the two subsequent studies. Although the third sample included at-risk parents, a more thorough investigation with other potential secondary prevention groups would be useful. Indeed, a research design with at-risk samples, accompanied by a group of parents who have been substantiated for abuse, could provide a comparison of how such issues may differ across different risk groups.

Overall, in order to advance prevention efforts, future research should continue to investigate how different parenting styles may relate to physical abuse risk and parent-child aggression. Progressive approaches to prevention could identify which parenting strategies could be modified that may in turn decrease the incidence of not only abusive parent-child aggression but perhaps aggressive tactics more broadly, including psychological aggression. Identification of the salient parenting attitudes and behaviors linked to varying levels and manifestations of parent-child aggression may help clarify how best to intervene on the continuum of behaviors that emerge during parent-child conflicts.

NUMBER 5

CITATION

Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Hermanns, J. M. A., Peetsma, T. T. D., & van den Wittenboer, G.,L.H. (2008). Parenting style as a mediator between children’s negative emotionality and problematic behavior in early childhood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169(3), 209-26. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/228540205?accountid=39859

ABSTRACT. Negative emotionality is considered to be the core of the difficult temperament concept (J. E. Bates, 1989; R. L. Shiner, 1998). In this correlational study, the authors examined whether the relations between children’s negative emotionality and problematic behavior (internalizing and externalizing) were partially mediated by parenting style (authoritative and authoritarian) in a community sample of 196 3-year-old children and their mothers. The authors assessed maternal perception of child negative emotionality using the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (M. K. Rothbart, S. A. Ahadi, K. L. Hershey, & P. Fisher, 2001) and assessed problematic child behavior by means of maternal report using the Child Behavior Checklist (T. M. Achenbach, 1992). The results showed that the relations between child negative emotionality and internalizing and externalizing behaviors were partially mediated by mothers’ authoritative parenting style. Moreover, when the authors used confirmatory factor analysis to decontaminate possible overlap in item content between measures assessing temperament and problematic behavior, the association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was fully mediated by authoritative parenting.

Keywords: externalizing, internalizing, parenting, temperament

CHILDREN DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER beginning early in life, and these differences may have implications for parent-child interactions. Some important differences pertain to children’s temperament (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). Although ideas about temperament go back to ancient Greco-Roman times, Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, and Korn (1963) conducted the first major study of temperament in children. Their New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) identified nine dimensions of temperament: activity level, approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, threshold, intensity, distractibility, rhythmicity, and attention-span persistence (Thomas et al., 1963). They also developed a difficult temperament concept that included the negative poles of the dimensions approach-withdrawal, adaptability, mood, intensity, and rhythmicity. They concluded that difficult preschoolers in the NYLS were at increased risk for later behavioral and emotional problems (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). This finding has spurred much research examining the association between temperament characteristics and developmental outcomes.

Although researchers have debated the definition of temperament over the past several decades, a consensus has emerged that the term refers to constitutionally based differences in behavioral style that are visible from the child’s earliest years (Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004). Three broad aspects of temperament are gaining wide acceptance: negative emotionality, self-regulation, and a dimension variously labeled as approach-withdrawal, inhibition, or sociability (Sanson et al., 2004). Negative emotionality can be considered the core of the difficult temperament concept (Bates, 1989; Lee & Bates, 1985; Prior, 1992; Shiner, 1998). A widely accepted definition of negative emotionality is the child’s tendency to react to stressors with high degrees of emotionality, including anger, irritability, fear, or sadness (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994).

Temperament is considered more a function of the biological makeup of the child and less a product of the child’s interaction with caregivers (Zeanah & Fox, 2004). Researchers support the view of temperament as innate or biological and have found the genetic component of temperament to be fairly large. For example, Bokhorst et al. (2003) compared temperament in monozygotic and dizygotic twins and calculated that 77% of the variance in temperamental reactivity could be explained by genetic factors. Accordingly, temperament also has been shown to be moderately stable over time, with correlations ranging from .2 to .4, although stability may be higher (.7 < r < .8) if measurement error is taken into account (Sanson et al., 2004).

Temperament is generally measured using parent questionnaires because researchers tend to be primarily interested in parental perceptions of temperament. Although some researchers have questioned the validity of parent report as an objective measure of child temperament (Mangelsdorf, Schoppe, & Buur, 2000), other researchers have argued that there is a strong objective component in parent ratings of child temperament (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). This last claim is supported by empirical studies showing convergence between parent ratings and observational assessments of temperament (e.g., Kochanska, 1995; Pauli-Pott, Mertesacker, Bade, Bauer, & Beckmann, 2000; Schuler, Black, & Starr, 1995).

Temperament and Problematic Behavior

In the decades following the NYLS, empirical evidence has accumulated showing that difficult temperament in early childhood is both concurrently and prospectively related to internalizing behavior, such as anxiety, sadness, social withdrawal, and fearfulness, and externalizing behavior, such as overactivity, poor impulse control, noncompliance, aggression toward peers, and tantrums (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Sanson et al., 2004). Most researchers focus on externalizing behavior, presumably because pure internalizing symptoms are difficult to identify and thus harder to study in young children (Campbell, 1995). When measured at the preschool age, however, externalizing and internalizing behaviors are substantially correlated in clinical and nonclinical samples (Campbell; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). This co-occurrence is not well understood. Although shared risk factors, genetic influences, and risk factors that stem from the development of an initial disorder constitute some of the proposed explanatory factors, few researchers to date have explored this phenomenon (Oland & Shaw, 2005). Regarding gender, Campbell concluded that the bulk of evidence suggests that gender differences in internalizing and externalizing behaviors are not marked in preschool-aged children. Although school-aged boys have a higher incidence of externalizing behavior, by early adolescence, girls shift toward more internalizing behavior (Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Conners, 1991).

Like temperament assessment, assessment of problematic behavior in preschool-aged children often involves adult-rated questionnaires (mostly by parents, sometimes combined with preschool or daycare teachers). The validity of parent report of problematic behavior has been demonstrated in several studies (Campbell, 1995). According to Campbell, preschool-aged children whom parents or teachers rate higher on externalizing behaviors are also more difficult to handle when they are observed interacting with teachers, parents, and peers in structured and unstructured situations.

Parenting Behavior

Researchers have consistently described parenting behavior along two dimensions: support and control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Support can be designated as parental behavior that makes the child feel comfortable in the relationship with his or her parent, fostering an internal representation in the child that he or she is basically accepted (Rollins & Thomas). Supportive parenting relates to constructs such as warmth, sensitivity, responsiveness, and acceptance and is considered essential for the formation of secure attachments and other positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Coplan, Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, & Moulton, 2002; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2004), whereas lack of support may contribute to problematic behavior (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). The second dimension, control, is “behavior of the parent toward the child with the intent of directing the behavior of the child in a manner desirable to the parents” (Rollins & Thomas, p. 321). Control strategies may vary from positive to negative, depending on the parent and the situation. One negative strategy, restrictive control, is characterized by high power assertion, negativity, intrusiveness, hostility, overcontrol, or overinvolvement. More restrictive control has been associated with increased externalizing behavior (Calkins, 2002; Campbell, 1995).

Maccoby and Martin (1983) proposed a fourfold scheme in which combinations of support (high and low) and control (high and low) describe four parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting. The most common parenting styles in this fourfold scheme are authoritative and authoritarian parenting. Authoritative parenting is characterized by a combination of high warmth, firm but fair control, and the use of explanations and reasoning (Campbell, 1995). Authoritarian parenting involves power assertion without warmth, nurturance, or two-way communication. Authoritative parenting is generally advantageous to child development (Coplan et al., 2002; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). In addition, this method also captures the sense of mutuality that may be particularly important for parenting children who have high levels of negative emotionality (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). In contrast, authoritarian maternal parenting that is arbitrary, negative, or uninvolved is associated with noncompliance, defiance, and low internalization of control (Campbell). Fathers generally report less authoritative parenting than do mothers (e.g., Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). An explanation for this finding may be that mothers are generally more emotionally invested in parenting, face relatively strong societal expectations about parenting, and, as a rule, have the most responsibility for parenting (Corwyn & Bradley, 1999; Geary, 2000).

Parenting style is more authoritative and child-centered in families of higher socioeconomic status (SES), in contrast to the authoritarian parent-centered style that characterizes lower SES families (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002). Furthermore, children showing problematic behavior at preschool age are more likely to come from families of lower SES (Campbell, 1995). These findings may be explained by the more stressful family circumstances in lower SES families, such as financial problems, housing problems, and difficulty in accessing child welfare, medical facilities, or other social services that can be used as a source of support.

Mediation by Parenting

In the majority of studies, researchers report small to moderate associations between children’s negative emotionality and problematic behavior (Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991). In addition, most researchers only focus on direct effects. What appear to be direct effects, however, could also result from more complex and indirect relations, such as mediation processes. Mediation by parenting may be a plausible indirect pathway connecting temperament with problematic behavior (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Lee & Bates, 1985; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Mediation by parenting implies that the child’s negative emotionality affects parenting and that parenting subsequently affects the child’s behavior. Several researchers already have investigated these separate paths. Empirical evidence has shown that higher levels of child negative emotionality are associated with (a) more authoritarian parenting behaviors, such as power assertion, low emotional support, punitiveness, and general unresponsiveness, and (b) less authoritative parenting (e.g., Sanson et al., 2004). Therefore, these authoritarian parenting behaviors are related to more externalizing behavior (Paterson & Sanson, 1999; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003) and internalizing behavior (Morris et al., 2002).

Present Study

In the present study, we attempted to provide more insight into the mechanism that relates preschoolers’ negative emotionality to their problematic internalizing and externalizing behaviors, as measured by maternal perceptions. We examined direct and indirect associations in this community sample. We focused on 3-year-olds to fill a gap in the existing literature. Based on our proposed mediation model (see Figure 1), we expected to find (a) direct associations between child negative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizing behaviors, (b) direct associations among higher levels of negative emotionality, less authoritative parenting, and more authoritarian parenting, (c) direct associations between less authoritative and more authoritarian parenting and higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior, (d) indirect, mediated paths from negative emotionality through parenting styles to more problematic behavior, (e) associations between lower levels of SES and higher and lower levels of authoritative parenting, and (f) associations between lower levels of SES and higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Because we considered parenting style to be only one of the processes linking temperament with problematic behavior, we hypothesized partial mediation, which indicates that the effects of negative emotionality on internalizing and externalizing behaviors remain significant in a model that accounts for mediation by parenting.

We note that confounding of measures due to item-content overlap in the assessment of temperament and problematic behavior may invalidate conclusions about the relation between negative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, Lemery, Essex, and Smider (2002) and Lengua, West, and Sandler (1998) showed that even after the removal of contaminated questionnaire items, there continued to be significant and interpretable relations between temperament and problematic behavior. In this study, we accounted for possible contamination of the measures for negative emotionality and problematic behavior by repeating the analyses of our final model using the decontaminated measures derived from a confirmatory factor analysis.

Method
Participants

In collaboration with Dutch child health centers in the province North- Holland, we recruited 196 preschool-aged children (98 girls, 98 boys; M age = 3.4 years, SD = 0.4 years) and their mothers (M age = 35.9 years, SD = 3.7 years) to participate in this study. In The Netherlands, child health centers serve the general population. Of the participating families, 99% were two-parent families; mothers were either married to or living with the father of the child. Ninety-two percent of the mothers were born in The Netherlands, and 8% of the mothers were born elsewhere. Forty-seven percent of the children were firstborn and 53% were later born.

Procedure

We contacted 750 randomly selected families through a letter from the child health centers and asked if they would participate in a study of temperament and development. A registration form and a postage-paid envelope (to be sent to the university) were enclosed. Participants were assured confidentiality and that they would receive a brief report about the results of the study. The 267 families (36%) who agreed to participate were sent a set of questionnaires to be completed at home by the parent who was most involved in raising the child. The parents returned the questionnaires by mail. We received 201 (75%) sets of completed questionnaires. Because all but 5 of the sets of questionnaires were completed by mothers, we report only data with regard to mothers (N = 196). Due to Dutch privacy legislation, it was not possible to investigate whether a nonresponse bias existed.

Measures

Negative emotionality. For the composite measure of negative emotionality, mothers completed five scales of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).

1. Anger-frustration scale (13 items) referred to interruption of ongoing tasks or goal blocking. Cronbach’s alpha estimating internal consistency for this scale was .83.

2. Discomfort scale (12 items, α = .69) concerned reactions to sensory qualities of stimulation, including intensity, rate, or complexities of light, movement, sound, and texture.

3. Fear scale (12 items, α = .71) included unease, worry, or nervousness, which are related to anticipated pain or distress or potentially threatening situations.

4. Sadness scale (12 items, α = .68) concerned exposure to suffering, disappointment, and object loss and hence lowered mood and energy.

5. Soothability scale (13 items, α = .81) concerned the rate of recovery from peak distress, excitement, or general arousal.

Mothers rated their child on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely untrue of your child) to 7 (extremely true of your child). Mothers also had a nonapplicable response option to be used when the child had not (yet) been observed in the situation described. We assessed construct validity using principal component analysis, which revealed a one-dimensional solution with soothability loading negatively, factor loadings ranging from .69 to .82, and an explained variance of 58%. Internal consistency for the composite negative emotionality measure was α = .82. The mean score for the composite negative emotionality measure was 3.32 (SD = 0.70, N = 196).

Parenting styles. We derived the composite measures for authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles from six scales that the mother completed.

1. Responsiveness scale (8 items, α = .92) referred to the extent to which the mother considered herself responsive to the needs and signals of her child. It was derived from items from the Nijmegen Parenting Questionnaire (Gerris et al., 1993; Gerrits, Dekovic, Groenendaal, & Noom 1996).

2. Consistency scale (8 items, α = .70) referred to the extent to which the mother’s behavior was predictable for the child and was measured by items from the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal, Dekovic, & Noom, 1996; Slater & Power, 1987).

3. Acceptance scale (12 items, α = .62) referred to the extent to which the child lived up to the mother’s physical, intellectual, and emotional expectations. The items came from the Parenting Stress Index (translated and revised by Brock, Vermulst, Gerris, & Abidin, 1992; Groenendaal, Gerrits, & Rispens, 1996). Mothers rated their parenting behavior on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).

4. Induction scale (5 items, α = .83) indicated disciplining techniques, such as pointing out consequences of misbehaving to the child and reasoning with the child.

5. Power assertion scale (5 items, α = .79) indicated disciplining techniques such as raising one’s voice, the use of physical punishment, taking away privileges, or giving the child an extra chore.

6. Love withdrawal scale (5 items, α = .81) referred to disciplining techniques such as punishing the child by ignoring him or her or sending the child away.

Induction, power assertion, and love withdrawal were measured by items from the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Gerrits, Groenendaal et al., 1996; Slater & Power, 1987). Mothers read five vignettes describing parenting situations and 10 possible reactions. Subsequently, they used a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very improbable) to 4 (very probable) to rate how likely they considered themselves to react in these ways.

Principal component analysis revealed a two-dimensional solution with 29% of the variance explained by a factor dealing with authoritative parenting and 28% of the variance explained by a factor that could be labeled authoritarian parenting. Scales loading on authoritative parenting were Responsiveness (factor loading = .59), Acceptance (.71), Induction (.52), and Consistency (.74). Scales loading on authoritarian parenting were Power assertion (.88) and Love withdrawal (.87). We standardized the six separate scale scores before computing composite scores. Internal consistency for the composite authoritative parenting measure was α = .83. Internal consistency for the composite authoritarian parenting measure was α = .76.

Problematic behavior. We assessed problematic behavior using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1992; Koot, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The CBCL contains 100 problem items that are scored on 3-point Likert-type scales. Mothers indicated whether behavioral descriptions were 0 (not at all true), 1 (somewhat true), or 2 (very true) of their child. Overall scores were obtained for the broadband syndromes of internalizing behavior (anxious-depressed and withdrawn; 26 items, α = .88) and externalizing behavior (aggressive and destructive behavior; 25 items, α = .74). The mean score for internalizing behavior was 6.00 (SD = 4.25, N = 196). The mean score for externalizing behavior was 11.44 (SD = 7.54, N = 196).

SES. SES of the family was a combination of the educational and vocational backgrounds of both parents as reported by the mother and was computed on the basis of sample-specific factor loadings and standard deviations. Mean scores corresponded to socioeconomic strata: 3-9 was lower class, 9-12 was middle class, and 12-16 was upper class (Bernstein & Brandis, 1970). Principal component analysis revealed a one-dimensional solution with factor loadings ranging from .71 (vocational background of mother) to .82 (educational background of mother) and an explained variance of 63%. Internal consistency of the scale was α = .80. The mean score for SES was 12.13 (SD = 2.57, N = 196). The sample consisted primarily (90%) of middle- and upper-class families.

Results

Correlations and covariances for the study variables are presented in Table 1. In preliminary analyses, we examined gender and birth-order differences with respect to the composites of negative emotionality, authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, and internalizing and externalizing behaviors. There were no significant gender or birth-order differences in mean scores on any of the variables. We analyzed data on the sample covariance matrix estimates using maximum-likelihood estimation. We used AMOS, version 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). We performed tests of indirect, mediated effects using bootstrap procedures. Bootstrapping results in enhanced statistical power for testing mediational models when sample sizes are moderate or small (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Overall model fit was assessed using chi-square, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and Steiger’s root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The AGFI is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance that are jointly accounted for by the model. It ranges from 0 to 1, and values close to 1 indicate a good fit (Jöreskorg & Sörbom, 1989). The RMSEA is a population-based index and is relatively insensitive to sample size (Loehlin, 1998). According to Loehlin, an RMSEA of .05 or less would indicate a close fit of the model.

We started with the full theoretical model (see Figure 1), which we found fit the data well, χ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) = 1.91, p = .38; AGFI = .97; RMSEA = .00. However, the direct paths from SES to authoritative parenting, negative emotionality to authoritarian parenting, and authoritarian parenting to both internalizing and externalizing behavior were not significant. Omitting these paths from the model for parsimony left authoritarian parenting disconnected from both predictor (negative emotionality) and outcome variables (problematic behavior). Therefore, we removed authoritarian parenting from the model.

The adjusted model (see Figure 2) still fit the data well, χ^sup 2^(2, N = 196) = 2.49, p = .29; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. All direct paths in this model were significant, so no further adjustments were made. Children’s negative emotionality was positively associated with children’s externalizing behavior (β = .44, p = .002) and internalizing behavior (β = .39, p = .002). We found a negative association between children’s negative emotionality and maternal authoritative parenting style (β = -.40, p = .002). Maternal authoritative parenting style was also negatively associated with children’s externalizing behavior (β = -.17, p = .015), as was the association between maternal authoritative parenting style and children’s internalizing behavior (β = -.17, p = .008). Family SES was negatively associated with both children’s internalizing (β = -.19, p = .007) and externalizing behaviors (β = -.18, p = .002). However, SES was not associated with maternal authoritative parenting style. Children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors were moderately correlated (r = .46, p = .002). With regard to the hypothesized indirect effects, the association between children’s negative emotionality and externalizing behavior was partially mediated by maternal authoritative parenting style (β = .07, p < .05), and the association between children's negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was also partially mediated by maternal authoritative parenting style (β = .07, p < .01). The model accounted for 26% of the variance in internalizing behavior and 32% of the variance in externalizing behavior.

In additional analyses, we tested the final mediation model after decontamination of the CBQ and CBCL items through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; see Lengua et al., 1998). CFA of the CBQ and CBCL yielded three meaningful constructs (negative emotionality, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior) with satisfactory internal consistencies (.68 < α < .85). Item-content overlap proved to be most prominent in the scale for internalizing behavior. The CFA model showed an acceptable fit to the data, χ^sup 2^(1376, N = 196) = 2611.31, p < .00; AGFI = .66; RMSEA = .07: The ratio between the chi-square statistic and the degrees of freedom was lower than 2.5 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Subsequently, we tested the final mediation model using the decontaminated CBQ and CBCL. The decontaminated mediation model still showed an adequate fit to the data, χ^sup 2^(3, N = 196) = 4.14, p = .25; AGFI = .96; RMSEA = .04. The direct association between negative emotionality and externalizing behavior was less strong in the decontaminated model but still significant. The direct association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior, however, was reduced to nonsignificance. The mediated effects that we found in the adjusted model were also present in the decontaminated model and were of similar size. However, the finding that the direct association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was reduced to nonsignificance indicates that this association was then fully mediated by authoritative parenting instead of partially mediated.

Discussion

Our aim in the present study was to investigate parenting as a possible mechanism linking children’s negative emotional reaction style to their problematic behavior in families drawn from the general population. In line with earlier findings, the results of this study show a relation between child negative emotionality and problematic behavior. More important, though, is the finding that this relation was mediated by mother’s authoritative parenting style. As relations between temperament and problematic behavior may be inflated because of item-content overlap, we used CFA as a means of decontamination. The decontaminated model differed from the previous best-fitting model in that the direct relation between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was reduced to nonsignificance, indicating that the association between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was fully mediated by authoritative parenting. It seems that decontamination of measures assessing negative emotionality and problematic behavior yields a clearer picture of the mediation process. Moreover, our findings match those of Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios (1990), who found a significant amount of overlap between temperament and internalizing behavior, indicating that parents may infer their child’s internalizing behavior partly from perceptions of their child’s temperament.

Theoretical Relevance

The coefficients of the mediated paths were small but of theoretical interest because this study demonstrates that parenting can mediate the relation between children’s difficult temperament and problematic behavior. Furthermore, with authoritarian parenting style’s not being a mediator, our results suggest that authoritative parenting may be more important for the behavioral adjustment of preschoolers than is authoritarian parenting. This is in line with findings by Pettit and Bates (1989) and Rothbaum and Weisz (1994), who have suggested that, despite both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles being high on the control dimension, parental control should be exercised in a sensitive way to be effective. In this way, it appears that love withdrawal and power assertion are aspects of control that do not contribute to the prevention of problematic behavior. Coplan et al. (2002) suggested that an authoritarian parenting style functions as a lens through which all children’s behaviors are perceived and evaluated. The researchers found the default emotional response of authoritarian mothers to be negative, regardless of child behavior. It is possible that a parent-centered parenting style also generates a default behavioral response and consequently does not show any variation in negative parenting behavior when compared with varying degrees of negative emotionality.

Our findings agree with those of studies showing associations between internalizing and externalizing behaviors at the preschool age (Campbell, 1995; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). The moderate relation between internalizing and externalizing behaviors may partly be accounted for by a process of multifinality, namely, a similar initial condition (difficult temperament) that leads to different effects (internalizing and externalizing behavior; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). We found empirical evidence for a link between negative emotionality and both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. It is interesting that the relation between negative emotionality and externalizing behavior proved to be partially mediated by parenting, whereas the relation between negative emotionality and internalizing behavior was fully mediated by parenting in the model that was not affected by item-content overlap in measures of temperament and problematic behavior.

Last, as hypothesized, family SES proved to be modestly related to problematic behavior. The relations between SES and authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles were in the expected direction, though not significant, indicating that parenting did not act as a mediator here. Stronger relations may be found in more heterogeneous samples.

Practical Relevance

The finding that an authoritative parenting style mediates the relations between negative emotionality and problematic behaviors underscores the importance of providing effective parenting support to parents who have difficulties in dealing with their young child’s negative emotionality on a daily basis. When parents can be trained and encouraged to react to their children’s negative emotionality in an adaptive way, parent-child interactions may become more enjoyable, thereby reducing the occurrence of problematic behaviors and preventing more serious behavioral problems later in life (Campbell, 1995; Patterson, 1982). We note that even in general population samples, a substantial percentage of children (up to 10%) may develop internalizing- and externalizing-behavior problems in the clinical range (Achenbach et al., 1991; Verhulst, van der Ende, & Koot, 1996). The present study adds to the body of literature showing how normal development may go awry.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. The first is the correlational nature of the design, which sets limits on the causal interpretation of our results. Second, it is possible that the mediations we found may be accounted for by genetic similarities between parent and child. However, researchers focusing on individual differences in internalizing and externalizing behaviors have shown that both genes and environment play a role and that shared environmental factors, especially parenting, can be considered important for the stability of internalizing and externalizing behavior from preschool to middle childhood and early adolescence (Bartels, 2004; Stams, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2002; van der Valk, van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 2003). A third limitation of the study is its limited generalizability because the participants predominantly came from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds. Notably, a recent meta-analysis of negative emotionality and parenting showed the association between more child negative emotionality and less supportive parenting to be stronger in lower SES families than in families from middle or higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007). Last, the present findings may be generalized only to mothers and not to fathers. For example, researchers investigating the ecology of fathering have shown that fathers and mothers differ in both caregiving sensitivity and play interaction, which may have different developmental consequences for the child (Grossmann et al., 2002; Lamb, Frodi, Frodi, & Hwang, 1982; Parke, 1995).

Suggestions for Additional Research

Despite the increasing involvement of fathers in child rearing in many Western countries, researchers in this field still tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers. However, a more complete examination of the associations among negative emotionality, parenting style, and problematic behavior would require a greater number of studies that include data from fathers. Thus, although fathers are generally less willing to participate in research than are mothers, it is essential that researchers make every effort to get and keep fathers involved. In addition to including fathers, we also recommend that future researchers use longitudinal designs to test the proposed mediational model in the most robust way.

In sum, this study revealed that difficult temperament in preschoolers, characterized by expressions of negative emotionality, was related to both externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Moreover, we found initial evidence that an authoritative parenting style mediates the relation between children’s difficult temperament and problematic behavior. Although replication of our results is needed, this study adds to a greater understanding of the processes that are responsible for the progression of difficult temperament into problematic behavior.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ psychology research papper ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now