Week 8 - social development: parenting & families

Week 8

Contexts in which children’s socialisation takes place

• Family

• Peer groups

• Out of home contexts, e.g. school, early day-care centres

Critical socialisation agents

The parents

Critical socialisation context

The family

Parenting

Parents engage in a range of socialisation behaviours that they hope will foster such characteristics:

• Their responsiveness

• Their emotional tone

• Their use of discipline

Ways of studying parenting

• Parenting practices - specific, goal-directed behaviours through which parents perform their parental duties and ‘socialise’ their children.

• Dimensions of parenting - practices which underly general parenting characteristics.

• Parenting Styles - combining across different aspects of parenting to characterise parents’ general approach to parenting and the the emotional climate with which they parent.

Baumrind (1973) - parenting styles

1. Authoritarian - high in demands, low in responsiveness

2. Authoritative - high in demands, high in responsiveness

3. Permissive - low in demands, high in responsiveness

Authoritarian

• Parents try to control children’s behaviour based on the absolute set of standards

• Stress importance of compliance and conformity, parents being in control, expect children to respect authority of parent

• Low level of warmth and understanding, low nurturance

• May engage in harsher forms of punishment than authoritative

• Limit child’s autonomy and development of autonomy – could hinder child’s maturation and learning to take responsibility for actions

Authoritative

• Constellation of parent attributes that includes emotional support, high standards, appropriate autonomy granting, and clear, bidirectional communication

• High warmth, open communication, take the children’s view on board, problem solve with the child

• Warm and accepting of the child, encourage independence, verbal give and take

• Discipline takes children’s point of view, use reasoning, consider child’s level of development, avoid harsh punishment

• Like a democracy where both points of view are heard and considered

Permissive

Give permission for children to do anything

• Doesn’t exert a high level of behavioural monitoring and control

• Low expectations, few demands, allows child to have freedom to act and choose as they like

• Rarely imposes restrictions or timetable e.g. bedtimes, mealtimes, watching TV

• Tends to be extremely accepting of child’s behaviour and actions including impulsive actions

• Two possibilities: endorsed philosophy that being permissive fosters autonomy and independence; indulgence from inability to parent the child

Maccoby & Martin (1983) - parenting styles

Styles measured along two orthogonal dimensions:

• Warmth and repsonsiveness

• Control and demandingness

The 3 of Baumrind, plus:

4. Uninvolved/neglecting - low in demands, high in responsiveness

Uninvoled/neglecting

• Not setting high standards, not having a lot of restrictions

• Low monitoring, low in warmth and responsiveness

• Neither demanding nor responsive

• Not dedicated to the parenting role and is disinterested in helping to promote the child’s development

• Limits time and energy to devote to the child

• Don’t consider child’s needs or interests first

• Little knowledge or involvement in child’s life

Steinberg et al. (1994)

Study of 11,000 high school students, 6900 followed over 2-year period

Measured parenting style through teenager-report, looked at relationship between family style and teen behaviours:

• Authoritative parenting → Highest GPA, lowest delinquency

• Uninvolved parenting → Lowest GPA, highest delinquency

Steinberg et al. (1994) - 1-year follow up

• Authoritative parenting → best outcomes

• Uninvolved parenting → worst outcomes

• Authoritarian/indulgent → mixed results

• Effects small but significant

• Gaps widened over 1 year, especially between authoritative and neglectful homes

Pinquart et al. (2017)

Parenting styles predicted changes in externalising problems over time

• Externalising symptoms: aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, impulsivity, defiance, antisocial behaviour

• Internalising symptoms: anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, self-harm, somatic complaints

• Lower externalising problems linked to:

  • Parental warmth, behavioural control, autonomy granting, authoritative style

• Higher externalising problems linked to:

  • Harsh control, psychological control, authoritarian, permissive, neglectful styles

Effect sizes of parenting styles studies

Effects are significant but small to very small

• Possible that because both neglectful and authoritarian parenting styles are characterized by low parental warmth, this shared aspect may explain the elevated symptoms

• The observed lack of associations of permissive parenting with internalizing symptoms and self-esteem may indicate that negative effects of lack of parental behavioural control may be compensated by positive effects of parental warmth

Moderators in parenting styles studies

• Age - externalizing and internalizing, but not for self-esteem. Some moderating effects of age on academic achievement.

• Effects in ethnic minorities-> an effect of ethnicity was detected for internalizing symptoms:

  • Associations of authoritative parenting with internalizing symptoms became less positive

  • For educational achievement, small moderating effect of ethnicity was found with associations of authoritative parenting with academic achievement being weaker

Mousavi et al. (2016)

Despite hypothesised cultural differences between West and India, effect of parenting styles on children appeared similar across culture.

• Culture did not serve as moderator for parenting style and child outcomes.

• Although Malay, Chinese, Arab and Indian adolescents had higher anxiety compared to Caucasians

Kariyawasam (2019)

• Irrespective of cultural background, ppts from UK and Sri Lanka were more likely to self-harm in absence of strong, secure attachments with parents

• Authoritarian parenting style also had direct impact on self-harm

Inconsistency hypothesis

Suggested by Dwairy et al. (2006).

Effects of parenting style dependent on whether they are consistent with the expectations of the sociocultural environment

Chao (2000)

• Socialisation goals and practice vary across culture because different qualities are valued

• Same parental behaviour/parenting style may be interpreted differently depending on cultural meaning

Landsford et al. (2005)

Weaker adverse effects of corporal punishments on children’s adjustment in cultures with higher prevalence of this practice

Chao (1994)

Suggested Baumrind’s parenting style may not be culturally relevant in Asian and Asian-American families as parental strictness and warmth have different meaning in these contexts

Pinquart et al. meta-analysis suggests that

• More similarities than differences

• Authoritarian and neglectful parenting style associated with undesirable child outcomes in 2/3 of ethnic and regional analyses

• No negative associations of authoritarian parenting in families with African ethnic background

• Effects of permissive parenting seem to be most context-specific

• Other factors are important e.g. extreme poverty

• Dwairy et al. (2006) were wrong when suggesting that authoritarian parenting may show less undesirable associations with child outcomes in the more collectivist societies. The effects of this parenting style may even be more problematic in these countries

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems approach

Focus on interactions among the developing person and contexts for development.

• Child factors - genetics, temperament

• Interactions with proximal systems - family, friends

• Interactions with distal systems - health services, school curriculum, culture

• Parents work within - microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, chronosystem

Microsystem

Child’s immediate environment

Mesosystem

Connections children make between their immediate environments, e.g. their home and school

Exosystem

External setting which impacts indirectly on child’s development, e.g. mother’s workplace

Macrosystem

Child’s wider cultural context, e.g. political situation

Chronosystem

Pattens of events and transitions in child’s life, sociohistorical conditions

Belsky (1981) systems model of family functioning

Bi-directional relationships existing within family

• Parenting influenced from infant behaviour and development

• Infant behaviour influenced by parenting and marital relationship

Family dynamics

How family members interact through various relationships contributes to child’s development:

• Mother with each child

• Father with each child

• Mother and father

• Siblings with one another

Families

Complex social units whose members are all interdependent and reciprocally influence one another

Direct influences of the family system

Child will have individual relationship with siblings, father and mother

Indirect influences of the family system

Child observed way that mother and father relate to their siblings, and how they relate to each other.

• Perceiving these differences has impact on child’s self-esteem and their perception of standing within the family

Conger et al. (1992)

In Conger et al.’s conceptual model, a high level of economic pressure indicates that the family:

(a) Cannot meet its material needs

(b) Often falls behind in paying its debts

(c) Has had to cut back on everyday expenses in an attempt to live within available means

Economic pressures create in parents… (according to Conger et al., 1992)

Psychological distress in each parent as they can't provide things for their children.

• There is inter-parental conflict because they are so stressed -> leads to a disrupted parent-child relationship and how they treat their child

• They spend more time working than with their child because of their situation -> leads to adolescent skipping school, etc. due to positive or negative adjustment

• Conflict in marriage that indirectly effects, through parenting, outcomes for adolescents

Factors affecting parenting

• Low social economic status

• Stress

• Parent mental state

Low social economic status and parenting

• Parents who are more stressed have less capacity to think about child’s needs

• Might resort to authoritarian parenting because may think that more punitive discipline might bring about quicker reaction in compliance

Zussman (1980)

Parental distraction (mild cognitive load) led to:

• More negative and controlling behaviours

• Less positive and warm interactions

Their capacity to engage with children was getting in the way of how they wanted to parent.

Hay et al. (2010)

• Followed children of mothers with postpartum depression

• Assessed child outcomes at age 11

Children had:

• Lower IQ and numeracy performance

• More SEN (Special Educational Needs) statements

• More conduct and externalising problems

Family structures

• Two biological parents

• Single parents

• ‘Blended’ families/step-families

• Same-sex families

Bos et al. (2016)

Children with same-sex parents not different from children with heterosexual parents in terms of adjustment, personality, relationships with peers or academic achievement.

• Its the quality of relationships existing within a family that matter to development

Divorce and child outcomes

• Places children at greater risk for behaviour and achievement problems, but most children adjust well

• How well children cope depends on amount and quality of contact with parents post-divorce (Amato, 2010)