Lecture 22 Parenting Styles

Evolution of views: Old and New Approaches

1. Direction of effects in socialization

2. From individuals to interactions to relationships

3. Complexities within the family system

4. The family as embedded in the broader ecology

New approach: Belsky’s ecological approach to parenting

1. Direction of effects in socialization OLD APPROACH

Old Approach:

Parent → Child

Unidirectionality, parent = active, powerful, child = passive

1. Direction of effects in socialization NEW EVIDENCE

New Evidence:

Bell (70s): Child effects in socialization (children with certain temperaments push parents to be more coercive)

Patterson: Recall analyses of parent-child coercive interactions

Lytton (1990): Child effects in conduct disorder

Conclusion: Children can actively OPPOSE parental socialization

The newest approach: Children can actively EMBRACE parental socialization (our work)

Examples of how children can embrace and positively participate in their own socialization

Committed compliance — wholehearted, active, enthusiastic compliance. Child makes parental agenda his or her own

Responsive imitation — child enthusiastically imitates parental performance

The current view in Direction of effects in socialization

Parents and children co-create socialization environments

Parent ← → child (active contributor)

Bi-directionality, reciprocity, transactions between the parent and the child, co-regulation, the child can not only actively oppose parental influence, but he or she can also enthusiastically and actively embrace it

2. From individuals to interactions to relationship EARLIER RESEARCH

Parental behaviors = antecedents

→ child behaviors = outcome

2. From individuals to interactions to relationship LATER RESEARCH

Streams of behavior, bidirectional flow of interaction

2. From individuals to interactions to relationship CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH

Interactions occur in the context of relationships

Cumulative history of interactions leads to partners developing coherent expectations concerning each other’s behavior, joined goals, shared scripts, shared meanings, internal working models of each other and the relationship.

3. Complexities within the family system OLD APPROACH

Mother and child = the basic dyad

Father and child = occasionally studied

3. Complexities within the family system NEW APPROACH

Family SYSTEM

Family is best viewed as a system of relationships, made up of interdependent subsystems. Parents influence each other; parent and child influence each other; what happens between parents influences what happens between parent and child.

Family system as a whole does what?

Adapts to changes, more or less successfully

Examples of such events:

Birth of a sibling

Divorce, remarriage

Examples of research on such systemic processes

Inter-parental relationship influences mother-child attachment, parenting (“spillover effects”)

Inter-parental anger affects the child’s regulation of emotion

Grandparental support influences parenting process

4. The family as embedded in broader ecological system OLD APPROACH

The study of the family itself

4. The family as embedded in broader ecological system NEW APPROACH

Socialization, parenting, and the family are embedded in broader ecological contexts of the community, neighborhood, culture, society

4. The family as embedded in broader ecological system NEW APPROACH EXAMPLES

Social support and parenting

Maternal employment and mother-child attachment

Parental unemployment/poverty and discipline practices

Community violence, parental practices, children’s development (authoritarian style adaptive in high-risk neighborhoods)

Belsky’s (1984) model of parenting

Child is an active contributor, and influences parents

Marital relations influence parenting

Parenting patterns are inter-generationally transmitted

Family is immersed in complex external ecology

The Two orthogonal dimensions (long historical tradition)

1. Acceptance/Responsiveness

2. Control/Demandingness

Acceptance/Responsiveness

High: warm, supportive, nurturant, affectionate, sensitive, encouraging, approving

Low: cool, aloof, critical, insensitive, rejecting

Control/Demandingness

High: highly regulating child behavior, imposing many demands and limits, harsh, power-assertive, closely monitoring

Low: non restrictive, permissive, allowing freedom, little monitoring, few demands

Responsiveness

Particularly important in infancy (attachment formation) Both dimensions important from toddler age on

Maccoby — High acceptance and High demand

Authoritative

Reasonable demands, consistently enforced, responsive, accepting

Maccoby — Low acceptance and High Demand

Authoritarian

Many rules, demands; few explanations, aloof, unresponsive

Maccoby — High acceptance and Low demand

Permissive

Few rules and demands, full freedom, indulgent, accepting parents

Maccoby — Low acceptance and Low demand

Uninvolved

Few rules and demands, parents “absent”, unresponsive

Diana Baumrind

Control and Nurturance but also Communication and Maturity Demands

Three major rearing patterns (groups of parents)

Authoritarian

Authoritative (the Cosby or Huxtable style)

Permissive

Authoritarian

High control, strict rules, high power, punitive, no explanations for rule, expect strict compliance

Little warmth, low nurturance

One-way communication (from parent to child)

Authoritative (the Cosby or Huxtable style)

Firm, high control, but flexible; rules discussed with/explained to child warm, nurturant

Two-way communication, high maturity demands

Permissive

Lax control, few demands

Accepting, warm

No maturity demands made of child

A more recent pattern

Uninvolved pattern (Maccoby)

Children of authoritarian parents

At preschool age and middle childhood: moody, withdrawn, irritable, passive, hostile, poor copers, sulky, unfriendly. Average in cognitive and social competence

In adolescence: average in cognitive and social competence

Child of authoritative parents

At preschool age and middle childhood: self-reliant, self-controlled, cheerful, friendly, good copers, cooperative with adults, curious, popular, achievement-oriented, energetic/friendly. High in cognitive and social competence

In adolescence: have high self-esteem, high social skills, moral/prosocial, high achievers

Children of permissive parents

At preschool age and middle childhood: rebellious, under-controlled, aggressive, impulsive, domineering, aimless, low achievers, self-centered. Low in cognitive and social competence

In adolescence: Low in cognitive and social competence, poorly controlled. Aggressive, disruptive, low in competence, antisocial long-term path

Children of uninvolved parents

Aggressive, disruptive, low in competence, antisocial long-term path

Behavioral Control vs Psychological Control

Barber: A distinction between two forms of control

Behavioral control: Regulating the child’s conduct by discipline and monitoring

Psychological control: Regulating the child’s conduct by “love-oriented techniques” (Hoffman), such as ignoring, discounting, belittling, withholding affection, inducing shame or guilt, intrusive techniques. Control that constrains, invalidates, and manipulates children’s emotional experience. → leads to poor development outcomes, including mostly internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, but occasionally, also resentment anger

Controversies Regarding Power Assertion (e.g., Spanking)

Spanking

Gershoff: Always bad, never effective or beneficial

Larzelere: Sometimes effective and beneficial (if light and not hostile)

Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO)

Is a positive, close, mutually binding, and cooperative relationship that evolves in some parent-child dyads

Linked to multiple adaptive socialization outcomes

Leads to the child’s adopting a willing, responsive stance toward the parent

Two components to MRO

Mutual responsiveness

Shared positive affect

How can we study families and socialization?

Self-reports interviews, questionnaires, hypothetical vignettes (ex. security scales, children’s perceptions of parents, parents’ perceptions of children and each other)

Observational methods: scripted yet naturalistic contexts

Analogue experiments: (Parke’s research)

All methods have strengths and weaknesses; combination of methods is best