20.2.1.1.1: Parenting Theories

Parenting Theories

Parenting has gained ample research attention from various scientific areas. Many theories emphasize the vital role of parenting in child development. When studying parenting, researchers use different strategies considering parenting practices, parenting dimensions, or parenting styles. Parenting practices can be defined as directly observable, specific behaviors parents use to socialize with their children (Darling and Steinberg 1993). For example, parenting practices intended to promote academic achievement show involvement by attending parent-teacher meetings or regular supervision of children's homework. Other parenting practices include positive reinforcement, discipline, or problem-solving.

Definition: Parenting Practices

directly observable, specific behaviors parents use to socialize with their children

Rather than focusing on specific parenting practices, other researchers identified overarching parenting dimensions seen in relationship modeling. Most scientists agree on at least two broad dimensions of parenting, labeled parental support and parental control. Parental support is the affective nature of the parent-child relationship, indicated by showing involvement, acceptance, emotional availability, warmth, and responsivity (Cummings et al. 2000). The parental support dimension has been related to positive development outcomes in children, such as the prevention of alcohol abuse and deviance (Barnes and Farrell 1992), depression and delinquency (Bean et al. 2006), and externalizing problem behavior (Shaw et al. 1994).[1]

The parental control behavioral dimension consists of parenting behavior that attempts to control, manage or regulate child behavior, either through enforcing demands and rules, disciplinary strategies, control of rewards and punishment, or through supervisory functions (Barber 2002; Maccoby 1990; Steinberg 1990). Appropriate behavioral control has been considered to affect child development positively. In contrast, insufficient (e.g., poor parental monitoring) or excessive behavioral control (e.g., parental physical punishment) has been commonly associated with negative child developmental outcomes, such as deviant behavior, misconduct, depression, and anxiousness (e.g., Barnes and Farrell 1992; Coie and Dodge 1998; Galambos et al. 2003; Patterson et al. 1984). This parental behavioral control refers to control over the child's behavior; parental psychological control pertains to the parent's attempt to manipulate children's thoughts, emotions, and feelings (Barber 1996; Barber et al. 2005). Due to the manipulative and intrusive nature of psychological control, this type of control has almost exclusively been associated with negative developmental outcomes in children and adolescents, such as depression, antisocial behavior, and relational regression (e.g., Barber and Harmon 2002; Barber et al. 2005). The three parenting dimensions (support, psychological control, and behavioral control) have been labeled as distinct concepts that are interrelated. (Barber et al. 2005; Soenens et al. 2012).[1]

Other researchers have taken a different approach in studying parenting by emphasizing that specific combinations of parenting practices impact child development rather than separate parenting practices or dimensions (e.g., Baumrind 1991; Maccoby and Martin 1983). This approach examines which patterns of parenting practices occur within the same parent and how these patterns—commonly labeled as parenting styles—relate to children's development. It focuses on configurations within individuals rather than a variable–centered approach that focuses on relationships among individuals (Magnusson 1998).[1]

Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

Baumrind (1966, 1967, 1971) is a pioneer of research in parenting styles. She introduced three parenting styles to describe differences in typical (she used the term normal) parenting behaviors: the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. Baumrind (1971) suggested that authoritarian parents try to shape, control, and evaluate their children's behavior based on an absolute set of standards. In contrast, permissive parents are warmer, less controlling and grant more autonomy. Baumrind considered an authoritative parenting style to fall between those two extremes.

Maccoby and Martin: Demandingness and Responsiveness

In the 1980s, Maccoby and Martin (1983) attempted to bridge Baumrind's styles and parenting dimensions, focusing their research efforts primarily on the configuration of parenting styles. Based on the combination of two dimensions – demandingness and responsiveness – they defined four parenting styles: authoritative (i.e., high demandingness and high responsiveness); authoritarian (i.e., high demandingness and low responsiveness); indulgent (i.e., low demandingness and high responsiveness); and neglectful (i.e., low demandingness and low responsiveness). These parenting dimensions are similar to parental support and parental behavioral control. Based on Maccoby and Martin's work, Baumrind (1989, 1991) expanded her classification with a fourth parenting style: the neglectful parenting style.[1]

This work consistently demonstrated that children of authoritative parents had the most favorable development outcomes; authoritarian and permissive parenting was associated with negative developmental effects, while results for children of neglectful parents were the poorest. Other researchers have also replicated these associations.

• authoritative parenting style is associated with positive developmental outcomes in youth, such as psychosocial competence (e.g., maturation, resilience, optimism, self-reliance, social competence, self-esteem) and academic achievement (e.g., Baumrind 1991; Lamborn et al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994).
• Findings regarding permissive/indulgent parenting have inconsistently yielded associations with internalizing (i.e., anxiety, depression, withdrawn behavior, somatic complaints) and externalizing problem behavior (i.e., school misconduct, delinquency), and also with social skills, self–confidence, self–understanding and active problem coping (e.g., Lamborn et al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994; Williams et al. 2009; Wolfradt et al. 2003).
• An authoritarian parenting style has consistently been associated with adverse developmental outcomes, such as aggression, delinquent behaviors, somatic complaints, depersonalization, and anxiety (e.g., Hoeve et al. 2008; Steinberg et al. 1994; Williams et al. 2009; Wolfradt et al. 2003).
• Children of neglectful parents have shown the least favorable outcomes in multiple domains, such as lacking self-regulation and social responsibility, poor self-reliance and social competence, poor school competence, antisocial behavior and delinquency, anxiety, depression, and somatic complaints (e.g., Baumrind 1991; Hoeve et al. 2008; Lamborn et al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994).[1]

Criticism of Baumrind

Although Baumrind's classifications have greatly influenced parenting research, three issues have been overlooked. We'll look at the first two now and explore the influence of culture later. The first issue relates to the psychological control dimension, which is currently considered the third parenting dimension. Initially, Baumrind paid little attention to the role of psychological control because her control dimension solely referred to parental socializing practices aimed at integrating the child into the family and society (Darling and Steinberg 1993). In her later work (1971, 1989, 1991), Baumrind incorporated aspects of psychological control. Limited research (e.g., Pereira et al. 2008; Wolfradt et al. 2003) has identified four parenting styles that match the theoretically distinct styles. Within these parenting styles, psychological control coincided with behavioral control levels in the authoritarian parenting style.

When Parenting Styles Don't Align in a Family

Existing research provides little insight into the coexistence of different parenting styles and their collective impact on child development. Although Baumrind included both parents in her studies, she assigned a pre-defined parenting style to each one separately. In some studies (1991), data was limited to mothers when both parents were assigned a different parenting style; in others (1971), families were entirely excluded. Baumrind, along with general research on parenting styles, paid less attention to the impact of joint parenting styles on child development (Martin et al. 2007; McKinney and Renk 2008; Simons and Conger 2007). Children in two-parent/two-unit households are influenced by the combined practices of multiple people (Martin et al. 2007), and some studies have shown that family members can differ in their parenting styles (Conrade and Ho 2001; McKinney and Renk 2008; Russell et al. 1998). When research considers how families' parenting styles combine, it aligns more closely with the real experiences of children growing up in two-parent households. Only this kind of approach can shed light on possible developmental effects (Martin et al. 2007). For example, Simons and Conger (2007) found that having two authoritative parents was associated with the most favorable outcomes in adolescents; additionally, one parent's authoritative parenting style generally buffered the less effective parenting style of the other parent. Similarly, McKinney and Renk (2008) suggested that in late adolescence, perceiving one parent as authoritative while the other parent offered a different parenting style partly buffered emotional adjustment problems.[1]

Culture and Parenting Styles: What Baumrind Missed

Several studies demonstrate the influence of culture on parenting practices (Nair and Murray 2005) and parental authority and family relationships following cultural or gender differences [Zhang 2006)] Some research suggests the influence of parenting styles differs across ethnic groups [Dwairy M 2004a,b]. Parental authority depends on various factors, including social context, social classes, and cultures. Culture may affect the maternal and paternal roles and control [Albert, Trommsdorff and Mishra, 2004]. Some research has found that maternal control gives the feeling of security and acceptance to Indian adolescents but not German adolescents (Eman and Abdel,2017) . While many children reared in European-American cultures fare poorly with too much strictness (authoritarian parenting), children raised in Chinese cultures often perform well, especially academically Chao, R. K. (1994). Rozumah (2009) argues that parenting styles depend on the cultural context of the society, claiming Asian cultures are more collectivist than Western societies: the parenting outcomes valued in collectivist groups may form the basis for authoritarian parenting and be deemed more appropriate when compared with other parenting styles. These results are consistent with former results reported among the Palestinians in Israel [Dwairy M 2004a,b], but seem to contradict other findings concerning more strictness and oppression toward females than males in Arab societies (The Arab Woman Developmental Report, 2003). In a study of parenting styles of Egyptian adolescents [Dwairy and Menshar, 2006)], researchers found that parenting styles among Arabs are not as distinct as in the West. The three original parenting styles are not on a linear continuum where authoritarian and permissive styles exist at points on either side. Many studies using Baumrind's parenting prototypes found that most of their samples do not fit into any of the four styles [Marcus (1990 , Kim and Rohner, (2002)] (Eman and Abdel,2017).

Influences of Child Characteristics

Parenting is bidirectional. Not only do parents and caregivers affect their children, but children influence their parents or guardians.[2] A child’s characteristics, such as gender identity, birth order, temperament, and health status, can affect child-rearing behaviors and roles. For example, an infant with an easy temperament may enable families to feel more effective, as they can easily soothe the child and elicit smiling and cooing. On the other hand, a cranky or fussy infant can elicit fewer positive reactions from family and may result in parents feeling less effective.[ Eisenberg et. al., 2008] Over time, parents and families of more difficult children may become more punitive and less patient with their children [Clark, Kochanska,, & Ready,2000) Kiff, Lengua, & Zalewski, 2011]. Many parents who have a fussy, difficult child are less satisfied with their relationships and have more significant challenges in balancing work and family roles.[ Hyde, Else-Quest, & Goldsmith 2004).] Thus, child temperament is one of the characteristics that influences how parents and families behave with their children. Research also demonstrates that some parents talk differently with their children based on their child's gender identity, such as providing more scientific explanations to their sons and using more emotion words with their daughters [Crowley, Callanan, Tenenbaum, & Allen, 2001].[3]

Influences of Family Structures

The family is central in children's lives because children learn about themselves and the world around them through experiences with their families. "Family member" is used here to define the people primarily responsible for a child, including parents, extended family members, guardians, and foster families. Family structures, processes, and functions must be assessed to understand family members' roles in child outcomes.[Hammond, Cheney and Pearson, 2015].[3]

"Family structures" delineate household members related by blood or legal ties; this concept typically assumes there is at least one child younger than 18 residing in the household. Specific structures include two‐parent, one‐parent, and living with neither parent (e.g., grandparents or other relatives rearing a child, families providing foster care, or children living in institutionalized settings), blended families, single‐parent plus partner families (cohabiting couples, for example), multigenerational families, binuclear families, and adoptive families.

The U.S. Census Bureau utilizes these definitions of family structures:

Nuclear family: a child lives with two married, biologically related parents and only full siblings if siblings are present.

Cohabiting families: a child's parent lives with at least one opposite‐sex, non-related adult. This additional adult may or may not be the child's biological parent.

Same‐sex cohabiting/married families: a child's parent lives with at least one same‐sex, non-related adult. The additional adult may or may not be the child's biological parent.

Stepfamilies and blended families (terms used interchangeably): children who live in a household formed through remarriage resulting in children living with one or no biologically related parents. The presence of a stepparent, stepsibling, or half‐sibling designates a family as blended [United States Census Bureau, 2019].[1]

Caregivers of infants and toddlers need to learn the diversity of the child's family structure and roles when welcoming children and their families into the program. Henderson and Mapp (2002, 10) highlight the importance of family by recognizing that "all family members, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and fictive kin who may be friends or neighbors, often contribute in significant ways to children's education and development." It is essential for families to give information about important people and their relationships with each other and the child. Questions like, "Tell me about your family?" and "Who are the important people in your child's life?" will be more valuable than "What is the mother's name?" and "What is the father's name?" Family-centered care also recognizes the teacher's and program's roles in helping build networks and sustainable communities of support for families. These communities can support families years after leaving the infant and toddler program.[5]

[1] Kuppens, S and Ceulemans, E. Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept. Is licensed CC: BY

[2] Child Characteristics is adapted from "The Developing Parent" by Marisa Diener, licensed CC BY NC SA

[3] Parenting and Family Diversity Issues by Diana Lang and Marissa L. Diener is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA

[4] Culture and Psychology by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed CC BY-NC-SA

[5] California Department of Education, Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Program Guidelines, Second Edition by the California Department of Education is used with permission