6.3: Families as Context in Early Childhood
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Describe different parenting styles
- Discuss the key research on rewards and punishments for children
- Explain how siblings influence development in early childhood
- Describe the psychological impact on children of divorce
Henry’s parents Lionel and Jerome love him very much. They’re always fussing over him and trying to make him happy. As a four-year-old, Henry can be demanding. He loves cupcakes and asks for sweets constantly, so Lionel and Jerome always end up buying decadent desserts on grocery day. They love Henry’s big smile and his happy squeals. However, after the cupcakes, Henry has a hard time winding down for bedtime. A warm bath and comfy story time still don’t do the trick. So, one of his dads will cuddle him and sing lullabies until eventually Henry drifts off. It can be tiring, and sometimes Henry falls asleep only late at night.
This routine might all need to change once Henry’s younger brother has a say. Bennie is only a week old, and already he is altering the way his parents respond to Henry. A newborn needs constant attention, so Henry has been left to entertain himself more. But so far, he is excited about his baby brother and enjoys helping his dads find the burp cloths and clean diapers. It’s exciting for Lionel and Jerome to see how their family dynamic is shifting with its newest member.
Like all new parents, Lionel and Jerome will provide a variety of experiences for their children. Their parenting styles will affect their family, as will their cultural practices. The choices they make regarding discipline will also have an impact, as will the relationships between individual family members. For example, Bennie and Henry will have their ups and downs as siblings, and the quality of Jerome and Lionel’s marriage (and whether it lasts or ends) will also loom large. Let’s consider how these various familial contexts affect early childhood development.
Parenting Styles
Young children rely on their parents and caregivers to help them with daily tasks such as feeding, dressing, and self-care. As they grow and learn to navigate social interactions with others, children often use their relationship with their parents as a guide. Each day, parents model how to communicate, encourage, play, learn, and cooperate with others. Mundane tasks like household chores, errands, and bathing teach children about responsibility, collaboration, and social roles. The way a caregiver provides structure, feedback, and emotional support for a child is often called a parenting style .
Parenting Styles
The way parents influence the social development of young children was first studied by Diana Baumrind , who identified three unique approaches to parenting based on their degree of warmth and structure (Baumrind, 1966, 1971). These parenting styles differ in the levels of strictness and warmth shown to children (Maccoby & Martin, 1983) (see Figure 6.11).
One of the original three styles identified by Baumrind (1966) was authoritarian parenting and is characterized by a high level of structure, meaning the parents provide boundaries, rules, and discipline to their children, but also a low level of warmth. These parents can be described as taking a rules-focused approach; they prioritize having their children follow rules and obey adult directions. Authoritarian parents are less likely to negotiate with their children and instead direct and demand, without leaving room for compromise. A metaphor for the authoritarian parent is the brick wall—it is firm and has no give—which reflects how such a parent might be inflexible and uncompromising.
Children of authoritarian parents may become wary around authority figures and hesitant to speak up for themselves when there are misunderstandings, or they may become more likely to rebel as they grow older. However, in some situations, a strong protective figure may be helpful.
The term authoritative parenting refers to a more democratic, less rigid, and more gentle than authoritarian parenting. In this second parenting style characterized by Baumrind, parents take a relationship-focused approach in which they provide a moderate to high level of structure for their children, but also a high level of warmth and emotional support. Authoritative parents are more likely to talk things out with their children, model communication and conflict resolution skills, and offer explanations for their rules and disciplinary practices. A metaphor for the authoritative parent is a drum—it is firm but also flexible—which reflects the way such a parent is responsive and reactive to the needs of their child while still providing boundaries. Children of authoritative parents tend to develop skills related to compromising, coping, and understanding the needs of others (Haslam et a., 2020).
Baumrind’s third parenting style is permissive parenting and describes parents who display high levels of warmth but low levels of structure. These parents often take a child-focused approach to making decisions and navigating conflict. They often prioritize ensuring their child’s happiness by providing rewards, stimulation, and praise, and avoiding discipline and punishment. They are less likely to refuse their child’s requests and often relax their own guidelines to fit the child’s preferences. A metaphor for the permissive parent is gelatin dessert—it is highly moldable and movable without a defined shape or form—representing how such a parent will change themselves to please their child. Children of permissive parents may struggle to form compromise and conflict resolution skills (Tavassolie et al., 2016), particularly because they are accustomed to having things their way.
A fourth parenting type, uninvolved parenting , was not identified by Baumrind but was added by Maccoby and Martin (1983). This style is characterized by low structure and low warmth. Uninvolved parents tend to provide little attention, discipline, or support for their children and take a parents-focused approach. They often prioritize their own experience with little regard for the child, which is why this parenting style is sometimes referred to as neglectful parenting. Sometimes uninvolved parenting arises due to unforeseen circumstances, like major medical, economic, or domestic concerns that are beyond a parent’s control. Sometimes parents are struggling with mental health concerns, addictions, or substance misuse. Other times they are just disengaged, perhaps due to an unwanted pregnancy or custody placement. A metaphor for an uninvolved parent is a ghost—someone who is often absent in their children’s lives. Children of uninvolved parents grow up with little guidance and are at risk of forming negative coping strategies, behavioral patterns, and developmental outcomes.
Link to Learning
Parenting styles can be described in many ways. Watch this video about Baumrind’s theory of parenting styles to learn more.
Predictors of Parenting Styles
Parenting styles describe parents’ behaviors, of course, but they may arise from bidirectional interactions with other family members. For example, a parent or caregiver is often stricter with one child and more lenient toward another. This difference could be based on the children's temperaments, perceived genders, or other factors. A child who attempts to push boundaries may influence a parent to provide more structure; a child who is anxious and nervous may lead a parent to show more warmth and encouragement (Figure 6.12). Moreover, parenting styles can shift as adults grow and develop; younger parents may start as permissive and grow to take on more authority. Conversely, parents with high expectations may adjust their standards and relax their demands as they grow older. Further, many children grow up with more than one caregiver and may experience different parenting styles from each.
Infant-caregiver attachment style may also influence parenting styles. In 4.4 Social Development in Infants and Toddlers, you learned about the infant attachment styles called secure, insecure avoidant, insecure ambivalent, and disorganized. A parent who has a secure and close relationship with their child might be more likely to talk things out, provide rationales, and demonstrate an authoritative style. In comparison, a parent who has a more strained relationship with their child may choose to discipline and criticize their child as a main mechanism of influence. Finally, a parent who has an overly clingy and dependent child may attempt to use gentle encouragement and reward.
Additional Parenting Styles
The four parenting styles discussed so far were identified along the axes of warmth and structure. A third axis of support for autonomy was discussed by Cline and Fay in 1990. Autonomy is our sense of independence and control over ourselves. Parents who display a high support for autonomy often allow their children to try new challenges, take on new responsibilities, and overcome their own obstacles (Robichaud et al., 2020). Parents who exhibit low support for autonomy may prevent their children from facing hardship, readily solve dilemmas for their child, or interfere in common daily tasks. Parents with especially low support for autonomy have been labeled " helicopter parents " because they hover over their children, intrude inappropriately in their daily lives, and prevent the development of conflict resolution and coping skills. Other names for this parenting style are " steamroller parents " and " snowplow parents ." These parents anticipate upcoming obstacles and clear the path, so their children do not encounter any friction or hardships.
Allowing children to resolve minor inconveniences, conflicts, and challenges has been shown to have developmental benefits. Children who are permitted to work through their own obstacles are more likely to gain a sense of resilience, self-efficacy, and positive social skills. Children who rely on their parents to monitor and interfere may be more dependent, nervous, and anxious in new situations (Neubauer et al., 2021). Overall, children benefit best in an environment that provides high levels of warmth, structure, autonomy, and stability.
Culture and Child-Rearing
Parenting does not happen in isolation. Rather, it’s embedded within a culture and tied to cultural values (Figure 6.13). Most early research on parenting and child development focused on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic ( WEIRD ) cultures, thus studying White middle-class families in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Evaluating theories about child development for their cultural robustness adds value to our understanding of and study of human development.
For instance, Baumrind ’s theory of parenting styles often suggests that authoritative or democratic parenting is the most advantageous. However, in studies of children growing up in urban, high-crime areas, some researchers found that strict and authoritarian parenting may be an adaptive approach to reducing some risky behaviors (Clark et al., 2015). For children in higher-risk environments or of lower socioeconomic status, having an authoritarian parent in early childhood was once thought to lower the risk of delinquency, criminal activities, and heavy drinking later in adolescence by providing protection from neighborhood stressors. However, more recent research has suggested that strict and harsh parenting is not necessarily the optimal strategy, and that high levels of warmth and parent childrearing knowledge may be more effective prevention and intervention strategies for youth across classes, races, and ethnicities (Climent-Galarza et al., 2022; Mowen & Schroeder, 2018; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018; Roubinov & Boyce, 2017; Villarejo et al., 2024).
Support for autonomy may be advantageous for parents who are raising children in individualistic cultures in which self-responsibility and independence are valued. However, for parents in China and Korea, the use of control and boundaries tends to be a better predictor of positive child outcomes such as social emotional competence and academic achievement (Yim, 2022). This may be due to cultural emphasis on collectivism, or the upholding of group well-being over individual well-being.
Indeed, a large study (Deater-Deckard et al., 2011) that investigated the role of individualism and collectivism on parenting styles in nine countries found that these cultural values played a large role on the extent to which parents prioritized control and/or warmth in caregiving for their children (Figure 6.14).
Motivation, Discipline, and Initiative
Raising young children often means responding to their behaviors, words, and feelings in a way that will shape their future behaviors. Nearly every caregiver response has an impact on children’s motivation and understanding of the world. B. F. Skinner (1938) was the first to describe these responses in detail as consequences in his theory of operant conditioning .
Consequences follow a behavior and are either encouraging or discouraging. A consequence that encourages a behavior is known as a reinforcement , such as a smile, praise, or a new toy. A consequence that discourages a behavior is known as a punishment , such as a stern look, a scolding, or a time out. Notably, a consequence that encourages behavior in one child—like an apple—might discourage the same behavior in a different child.
Overall, reinforcement is a more effective and efficient strategy in shaping children’s behavior than punishment. Teaching what to do and rewarding it adds information and knowledge for children, as opposed to teaching what not to do , which subtracts knowledge. Reinforcement encourages neurological synaptic growth , or the fostering of new connections in the brain, whereas punishment relies on synaptic pruning , or the suppression of neurological associations, which requires much more effort. Moreover, reinforcement allows caregivers and children to maintain a happy, calm, supportive interaction that encourages learning and listening. When children are upset, irritated, or frustrated, they are less able to learn new information.
Positive Reinforcement and Rewards
Although reinforcement tends to be effective, in some situations it can undermine children’s motivation . Reinforcement works best when it is novel and unexpected, and less well when it has become routine. It is also most effective when delivered immediately, such as praise and a hug given immediately after a chore has been completed, and not an hour later or at the end of the day.
Finally, reinforcements should be small and intangible, such as praise, body language, and attention, rather than large and tangible like toys, food, money, or stickers. Much of the time, children are happy to receive small tokens of encouragement rather than large gestures. Although tangible rewards can help motivate a child to start a new behavior, such as putting away their toys at the end of the day, they don’t help to sustain the behavior over the long term. Rather, intangible reward s, along with feelings of pride, confidence, and connectedness with others, are the leading motivators for sustaining long-term habits.
In several studies between 1979 (Loveland & Olley) and 1999 (Deci et al), children were divided into two groups and asked to draw and color pictures. In one group, children were offered no tangible rewards, only praise and encouragement from researchers. In the other group, children were offered money for each picture completed. Children who were offered no tangible reward spent more time on their pictures, colored and drew in more detail, and showed higher levels of pride, contentment, and joy. In comparison, children who were paid completed more pictures, but they did so more quickly and used less detail. Moreover, children in this group displayed lower levels of joy and pride in their work. These experiments demonstrated that offering a tangible reward for a behavior that otherwise would be motivating in and of itself can actually compromise and decrease motivation (Figure 6.15).
A tangible reward like money is a form of extrinsic motivation , or an external reason or consequence for a behavior. In comparison, drawing a picture for its own sake carries intrinsic motivation , an internal reason for completing a behavior because the behavior itself brings joy, a sense of accomplishment, or connectedness. Intrinsic motivation is linked with long-term motivation and the formation of healthy habits.
Punishment and Discipline
Although reinforcement tends to be more effective than punishment , there are situations in which punishment may be more appropriate. For instance, if a child is performing a dangerous act and is at risk of harm, a parent’s intervention to discourage future dangerous behavior is warranted. Much like reinforcement, punishment can be an intangible response such as a facial expression, verbal comment, or body language, and it can also be tangible, such as penalties, chores, or the removal of privileges.
When a child’s behavior is punished or disciplined, it is optimal to offer the punishment immediately after the behavior, so children can clearly understand the connection between their behavior and the consequence. It is also best for the caregiver to have a healthy, positive relationship with the child and to remain calm but firm. If the parent or caregiver becomes frustrated or upset, this emotion will escalate the situation and decrease the likelihood that the child will learn from the punishment.
Life Hacks: Don’t Fall for the Reinforcement Trap!
Children are highly responsive to reinforcement and punishment, and sometimes caregivers are unaware of how their responses can shape children to become more stubborn and argumentative in the future. Imagine a parent is grocery shopping with their preschooler, who wants a colorful candy. The parent does not want to give the child the candy, due to its cost, poor nutritional value, or any other reason. A three-year-old may respond by crying, pleading, stomping their feet, and having a full-blown tantrum in the grocery store. If the parent responds to the tantrum by giving in and allowing the child to have the candy, they are reinforcing and encouraging future tantrum behavior. If the parent gives in after two minutes, that teaches the child they need to protest and cry for at least two minutes in the future, so they will start to have tantrums that last five minutes in length. If parents give in after five minutes, the next tantrum could be even longer.
So how should a parent respond to this situation? Well, if you want to discourage your child from acting out in public and using tantrums to win arguments, you will need to take a deep breath and endure the tantrum. This means not caving and giving in, but also not escalating the situation by yelling or becoming upset yourself. Staying calm, cool-headed, and patient while ignoring the onlooking grocery shoppers is the best long-term solution. You could also try simply distracting the child with a silly question, such as, “What do you think a mix between a walrus and a unicorn would look like?” or talking to them about the yummy dinner plan for the evening. Distraction can be an impressive tool for many difficult parenting moments!
Regardless of which of these techniques you choose for not reinforcing the tantrum, the child will calm down and realize they cannot win arguments—or candy—this way. (They still might find alternative approaches to persuading you they need a sweet treat in the future, though.)
For punishment to be most effective, the penalty should also be logical and match the behavior it is discouraging. Natural punishment is what happens when a caregiver does not interfere and lets nature takes its course. For instance, if a child is stacking chairs, climbs on them, and falls off, the natural punishment is the physical pain and discomfort from falling off the chairs. For safety reasons, however, natural punishment is not always ethical, safe, or moral. Logical punishment results when a caregiver intervenes and responds to a child’s behavior in a way that offers a rational consequence for their behavior (Mageau et al., 2018). For instance, a young child who throws their juice will need to help clean it up, and a child who pushes another will need to say they are sorry. Often, logical punishment helps children to understand connections as well as cause and effect and may need to be applied only a small number of times.
Logical punishment is more effective than illogical punishment , which is a penalty that does not conceptually fit a targeted behavior. Examples may include: yelling at a child who spills juice, spanking a child who draws on a wall, or sending a child who is overly loud from excitement to an extended time-out. These uses of illogical punishment might frustrate the child and teach them not to do these behaviors, but it will likely require more trials and attempts to successfully discourage the target behavior. In some cases, use of illogical punishment does not discourage a child from performing the undesired behavior, but rather teaches them not to be caught doing it, and may negatively affect their trust for and relationship with their caregiver.
It Depends: Are Time-outs Logical?
When spanking decreased in popularity as a child disciplinary technique, time-out s began to rise to ubiquity. However, they are not the ideal response to all childhood misbehaviors. When used correctly, time-outs can allow an overwhelmed child to calm down and find time to regulate. Time-outs are also beneficial and logical when they are connected conceptually to the undesired target behavior. For instance, if siblings are fighting and the chance of someone getting hurt is increasing, a time-out can help de-escalate the situation, remove children from a potentially harmful situation, and eliminate their opportunity to hurt another person. Time-outs are also effective when caregivers check in with children afterwards to discuss the behavior and why calming down was important.
However, in some daycare and home settings, time-outs can be misused and overused. Time-outs would be an illogical punishment choice for a child who will not eat their vegetables, clean their room, or get dressed for school. In these situations, removing the child and letting them escape their obligation may reward and reinforce their disobedience. Time-outs are also less effective when the child is given no explanation or teachable moment to help them learn more desired behaviors, when time-outs are excessive in length, or when the child is left without follow-up or supervision (James, 2020).
Link to Learning
Teaching children what not to do can be exhausting. Watch this video about conflict, discipline, and punishment to learn more.
Corporal Punishment
One type of discipline that relies on the use of bodily control is corporal punishment . Corporal punishment is physical punishment and can include things like slapping the back of a child’s hands, restraining a child, and spanking or hitting a child. Spanking, or hitting a child’s backside with an open hand, a belt, a switch, a wooden paddle, or another object, was relatively common for many years. In 1975, more than 85 percent of households surveyed said it was a main discipline or punishment technique. Starting in the 1980s, spanking started to decrease in popularity, with verbal discouragement, time-outs, and the ignoring of problematic behavior gradually increasing as strategies. As of 2017, spanking was still used in an estimated 37 percent of U.S. households (Mehus & Patrick, 2021; Finkelhor et al., 2019).
Many individuals who were spanked develop healthy relationships with their parents and are not abusive as adults. However, this positive finding cannot be credited to spanking. In fact, research has found no direct association between spanking and positive outcomes. Compared to children who were not spanked by their parents, children who were spanked display more aggressive and disruptive behaviors and have slower vocabulary development in early childhood (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). As outlined in Table 6.2, several research studies have consistently found use of corporal punishment to be highly associated with a range of negative outcomes for children.
| Outcome | Example |
|---|---|
| Short-term disobedience | Spanking increases frustration in children and is linked with more short-term defiance and problem behaviors. |
| Long-term disobedience | Spanking does not reduce temptation or guilt over the long term. |
| Low moral internalization | Spanking is less effective than other techniques in helping children to learn new values and morals. |
| Aggression | Spanking is linked with more aggressive behaviors in children. |
| Mental health problems | Spanking is linked with anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and hyperactivity. |
| Criminal behavior | Spanking is linked with delinquency and vandalism. |
| Conflictual parent-child relationships | Spanking is linked with strained or poor family relationships, and less vulnerability and disclosure. |
| Risk of child abuse | Spanking increases the risk that children will be the recipients of child abuse. |
Starting in 1979, Sweden made spanking and corporal punishment illegal. In 1990, the United Nations passed the Convention on the Rights of the Child , which 196 countries have ratified—more than have signed on to any other human rights treaty (United Nations, 1990). In addition, seventy-two countries have passed legislation to make spanking and corporal punishment illegal.
The only United Nations member state that has not yet ratified the Rights of the Child is the United States. Spanking also remains legal in the United States, despite advice from the Academy of American Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association that states corporal punishment is ineffective and leads to more defiance, aggression, and risk of child abuse (AAP, 2018; Glicksman, 2019).
Child Abuse and Neglect
Despite being illegal in more than 100 countries, corporal punishment in isolation is not considered child abuse . However, much of the research indicates that it has negative outcomes highly similar to those of child abuse, and that young children have similar negative responses to both (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).
Child abuse is drastic, harsh treatment that compromises and undermines the healthy development of a child. Child abuse can take several forms, including physical abuse , sexual abuse , emotional abuse , and neglect (Norman et al., 2012). Physical abuse includes the intentional bodily harm and injury of a child, often as an act of intimidation, punishment, or frustration. Sexual abuse is the inappropriate touching, photographing, or disrobing of a child. Emotional abuse consists of unrestrained and severe yelling, tormenting, intimidating, controlling, or demeaning of a child. Finally, neglect is failure to provide the necessities of life or the support to flourish and develop healthfully, and it can include physical neglect such as withholding food, shelter, new clothing, and hygiene products, or emotional neglect such as withholding attention and love. Young children between the ages of three and six years old who are experiencing abuse or neglect are more likely to act out at daycare or preschool. They appear overly tired, strained, or worn out, and have difficulty playing with same-aged peers; they also may cry more frequently for unexplained reasons. Table 6.3 presents the prevalence of abuse in the United States as a percentage of the population aged zero to seventeen, though it should be noted that many researchers believe that child abuse and neglect are still underreported (Massullo et al., 2023).
| Subtypes of Maltreatment | Prevalence in Children between 0 and 17 Years |
|---|---|
| Neglect | 25.2% |
| Physical abuse | 11.5% |
| Sexual abuse | 4.1% |
| Emotional abuse | 3.5% |
Children who experience maltreatment are at elevated risk for emotional problems such as anxiety and depression, and behavioral problems such as ADHD, conduct problems , and aggression . Moreover, children who experience abuse and neglect are more likely to struggle academically, cognitively, and with interpersonal relationships. Over the lifespan, child abuse and neglect are related to increased prevalence of psychological disorders such as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, and substance abuse (Felitti et al, 1998; Morris & Hays-Grudo, 2023). Finally, long-term stress associated with child abuse increases the risk of inflammatory physical diseases such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers (Lippard et al., 2019). Broadly speaking, early childhood traumatic experiences—whether from abuse, unstable home environments, unsafe environments, or natural disasters—can increase multiple child development risks. However, early intervention and support can foster resilience in children regardless of the type of adverse experience (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2024; Masten & Barnes, 2018).
In most regions of the United States and Canada, child abuse and neglect can be reported by calling Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS is an organization that includes social workers who can meet with families and help provide resources to prevent further abuse. Services include access to counseling, anger management classes, addiction services, unemployment services, housing and shelters, and food banks. More than a third (37.5 percent) of households with children between the ages of zero and seventeen experience a visit from Child Protective Services in the United States (Kim et al., 2017). In many countries, health-care and educational professionals are required to report suspicions of abuse and neglect, but they may encounter barriers to reporting, miss signs of abuse, or feel that they lack appropriate training to confidently report concerns (Gubbels et al., 2021; Perrigo et al., 2023)
A common misconception is that CPS seeks to remove children from their parents in all cases. However, social workers are trained to use removal as a last resort only, and often keeping families together in a safe situation is the main goal. Moreover, family separation for Indigenous and racialized children is known to be problematic. Indigenous children make up 50 percent of those in foster care in Canada despite being only 5 percent of the population (Newland, 2021)
Link to Learning
If you are concerned about or know someone experiencing child abuse, reach out to the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline for help. Call or text 1-800-422-4453 or chat through their website to receive confidential support.
Influence of Siblings
Siblings are often our first peers and offer many interactions to help us develop our social, emotional, and cognitive skills (Figure 6.16). Sibling interactions begin from birth, but they become much more intense, intimate, and rewarding once both sibling s are able to communicate verbally. Whether older, younger, or the same age, like twins or triplets, siblings can be biological relatives who share one or both parents, step-siblings, adoptive or foster siblings, or close cousins. Research on siblings is highly difficult because their age difference can range from nine months to more than nineteen years, influencing the types of interactions they will have with each other. In this section, we’ll discuss the benefits and drawbacks of sibling relationships, of different family sizes, and of birth order.
Link to Learning
Our siblings are our first playmates. Watch this video about the impact of siblings on child development to learn more.
The Benefits and Drawbacks of Siblings
Having a sibling in the home during early childhood has been associated with increased opportunities for play, support, and emotional bonding. A sibling who is close in age (within five or six years) can offer companionship in new situations, healthy challenges in learning conflict resolution and communication skills, and knowledge about the world. Younger siblings tend to observe their older siblings, and are quick to learn behavioral skills such as self-feeding, dressing, and outdoor play. Older siblings also benefit and show higher levels of empathy, perspective taking, and leadership from mentoring their younger sibling (Borairi et al., 2023).
However, sibling conflict and sibling rivalry are exceedingly common. Observational studies in young children’s homes find about eight conflicts per hour (Tucker & Finkelhor, 2015). Siblings often tease, jeer, and taunt each other, share sarcastic, cynical, or contemptuous facial expressions, and push, pull, and physically control one another. Although sibling conflict may be alarming, most of the time it allows for healthy relationship development. Intense emotional distress and risk of physical injury tend to be rarer than other forms of sibling conflict, but caregivers need to know their children and understand when to intervene to ensure their safety. Sibling rivalry tends to decrease if siblings have complementary temperament styles and better communication skills, if both receive love and attention from their parents, and if parents do not have an explicit favorite.
Family Size
Sibling relationships become more complex in larger families. Overall, families with fewer children tend to have more financial resources, time, and attention to dedicate to each child, whereas larger families with more children tend to have fewer resources but more rules and more requirements for each child to contribute to chores and household duties (Blaabaek et al., 2020). Although children in larger families do not receive as much one-on-one focus from their parents, they receive more companionship and interactions from their siblings (Figure 6.17).
Children without siblings often engage in much more interaction with parents and other adults and less with same-age peers. Although some believe that single children are spoiled and lack development in empathy, sharing, and conflict resolution, research has not supported this description. Instead, single children tend to have high levels of empathy and kindness, self-esteem, and achievement (Goisis et al., 2023). Those with access to same-age peers through daycare or preschool often also show high levels of social competence, friendliness, and conflict resolution skills. The one area in which single children may struggle is communication with other children, because they may be more familiar and comfortable with speaking to adults.
Birth Order
Sigmund Freud’s contemporary and colleague Alfred Adler was the first psychologist to hypothesize about birth order effects, which are personality and behavioral characteristics assumed to derive from being the oldest, middle, or youngest sibling in a family (Adler, 1964). According to Adler, the oldest child is more responsible, conservative, achievement-driven, and leader-like. The middle child or children are thought to be emotionally withdrawn, jealous, stubborn, and avoidant. The youngest child is a good-humored, fun-loving entertainer who lives for the moment.
Although birth order has been linked with academic achievement, with younger siblings less likely to attend post-secondary education, research indicates that this may be an effect of parent-child quality time rather than birth order (Price, 2008). Older siblings may benefit from having more individual attention from their parents before their next sibling is born, and later children may lack that advantage (Booth & Kee, 2009).
Overall, empirical research on birth order effects has not supported the birth-order theory. This may be due to the complexity of studying siblings. To conduct large-scale scientific research, researchers would need many families with a similar family structure, perhaps two married parents and three children under the age of eighteen. However, the gender and age of the siblings, the age differences between them, whether they were biological, step-, or adoptive siblings, and whether they lived together full-time or part-time would also influence the findings of the study. Families are so incredibly diverse that leading experts in the area have commented on how difficult it would be to find any evidence for birth order effects.
Divorce and Children
Around 30 percent of children live with a divorced, separated, unmarried, or remarried parent (Anderson et al., 2022). Divorce is likely to increase stress among caregivers and children, create financial strain, and decrease the amount of time children spend with their caregivers. Children of divorce are more likely to experience anxiety, disruptive behaviors at school, and lower academic achievement for two years following a parental separation (Miralles et al., 2021). Divorce is particularly likely to affect children’s outcomes when they are old enough to understand the seriousness of the situation but still young enough to depend heavily on their parents for daily caregiving, meal preparation, and transportation, typically between the ages of seven and fourteen (Baker & Ben-Ami, 2011).
Several factors influence a child's well-being during a divorce. Children who are more prone to worry, have anxious temperaments, or blame themselves are more at risk of adverse outcomes. In addition, parents who actively blame their ex-partners, who rely on their children for emotional or financial support, or who put the children in the role of mediator have been found to make the separation process more distressing for children (Figure 6.18). Table 6.4 considers both protective and risk factors.
| Protective Factors for Child Well-Being | Risk Factors for Child Well-Being |
|---|---|
| Ex-partners remaining civil around children | Ex-partners arguing and fighting |
| Ex-partners cooperating for child’s well-being | Ex-partners competing for child’s love |
| Allowing child to see both parents regularly | Reducing child's time with family members |
| Allowing a child to feel strong emotions | Relying on children for emotional support |
| Having enough financial resources | Relying on children for financial support |
| Explaining divorce in age-appropriate ways | Using children as mediator |
| Allowing a child to be a child | Expecting a child to grow up fast |
However, not all divorces are equal. Divorce may be beneficial to child well-being if it helps reduce exposure to abuse, domestic violence, disruptive and unhealthy communication patterns, or unhealthy parent-parent relationships. Children may also endure their family separation better if both parents remain active in their lives, explain to them in an age-appropriate way that the divorce was not the child’s fault, and do not compete for love or put the child in the role of a mediator. Allowing a child to process their emotions in an age-appropriate way is also beneficial to their well-being.
The shift from a dual-parent to a single-parent household will likely increase the financial and time strain experienced by families. Financial strain comes from the pressure to provide housing, food, clothes, and recreational activities within a family’s new and often constrained economic means. That is, even if both parents are financially supporting children after divorce, which is not always the case, they may bear the added cost of paying for two homes and two sets of utility bills. Divorced mothers are at particular risk for financial strain ; they are three times as likely to live in poverty as married couples (Bayaz-Öztürk, 2018).
Time strain refers to stresses on the amount of high-quality, one-on-one time that children can spend with their parents and caregivers. Divorced parents who may be required to work extra hours, take a second job, or perform all domestic labor themselves report feeling exhausted and unable to meet their children’s emotional needs at times. Unlike those in dual-parent households, for instance, divorced and separated parents do not always reliably have a teammate to help them pick children up after school or bathe them while dinner preparations are underway.
Divorced parents may find support by asking extended family members, neighbors, friends, and other single parents to help provide a care network. When grandparents, other divorcees, or friends can help with childcare, errands, or daily tasks, they can ease the time strain and even the financial strain experienced in divorced families.
References
Adler, A. (1964). Problems of neurosis . Harper Torchbooks.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2018). Effective discipline to raise healthy children. Pediatrics, 142 (6). doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3112
Anderson, L. R., Hemez, P. F., & Kreider, R. M. (2022). Living arrangements of children: 2019 . U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p70-174.pdf
Baker, A. J. L., & Ben-Ami, N. (2011). Adult recall of childhood psychological maltreatment in “Adult Children of Divorce”: Prevalence and associations with concurrent measures of well-being. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 52 (4), 203–219. doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2011.556973
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior, Child Development. 37( 4), 887–907. doi.org/10.2307/1126611
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4 (1), 1–103. doi.org/10.1037/h0030372
Bayaz-Öztürk, G. (2018). Anti-poverty effects of in-kind transfers among divorced or separated women in the United States. Poverty & Public Policy , 10 (1): 57–80. doi.org/10.1002/pop4.203
Blaabaek, E. H., Jaeger, M. M., & Molitoris, J. (2020). Family size and educational attainment: Cousins, contexts, and compensation. European Journal of Population, 36 (3), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09543-y
Booth, A. L., & Kee, H. J. (2009). Birth order matters: The effect of family size and birth order on educational attainment. Journal of Population Economics, 22 (2), 367–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0181-4
Borairi, S., Plamondon, A., Rodrigues, M., Sokolovic, N., Perlman, M., Jenkins, J. (2023). Do siblings influence one another? Unpacking processes that occur during sibling conflict. Child Development, 94 (1), 110–125. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13842
Clark, T. T., Yang, C., McClernon, F. J., Fuemmeler, B. F. (2015). Racial differences in parenting style typologies and heavy episodic drinking trajectories. Health Psychology, 34 (7), 697–708. doi.org/10.1037/hea0000150
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic. NavPress.
Climent-Galarza, S., Alcaide, M., Garcia, O. F., Chen, F., & Garcia, F. (2022). Parental socialization, delinquency during adolescence and adjustment in adolescents and adult children. Behavioral Sciences, 12 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110448
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Oburu, P., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Tapanya, S., Uribe, T. L. M., Zelli, A., Al-Hassan, S. M., Malone, P. S., Alampay, L. P., Sorbring, E., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Bornstein, M. H., Lei, C., & DiGiunta, L. (2011). The association between parental warmth and control in thirteen cultural groups. Journal of Family Psychology, 25 (5), 790–794. doi.org/10.1037/a0025120
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 14 (4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Wormuth, B. K., Vanderminden, J., & Hamby, S. (2019). Corporal punishment: Current rates from a national survey. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1991–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01426-4
Gershoff, E., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30 (4), 453–469. doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191
Gershoff, E., (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7 (3), 133–137. doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12038
Glicksman, E. (2019). Physical discipline is harmful and ineffective. Monitor on Psychology, 50 (5), 22.
Goisis, A., Chanfreau, J., Moulton, V., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2023). Only children and cognitive ability in childhood: A cross-cultural analysis over 50 years in the United Kingdom. Population and Development Review, 49 (2), 319–349. doi.org/10.1111/padr.12560
Gubbels, J., Assink, M., Prinzie, P., & Put, C. E. V. D. (2021). Why healthcare and education professionals underreport suspicions of child abuse: A qualitative study. Social Sciences, 10 (3), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10030098
Haslam, D., Poniman, C., Filus, A., Sumargi, A., & Boediman, L. (2020). Parenting style, child emotion regulation, and behavioral problems: The moderating role of cultural values in Australia and Indonesia. Marriage & Family Review, 56 (4), 320–342. doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1712573
James, C. (2020, February 6). Child development—The time-out controversy: Effective or harmful? Indiana University School of Medicine. https://medicine.iu.edu/blogs/pediat...ive-or-harmful
Kim, H., Wildeman, C., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2017). Lifetime prevalence of investigating child maltreatment among US children. American Journal of Public Health, 107 (2), 274–280. doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303545
Kuppens, S., & Ceulemans, E. (2019). Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 28 (1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x
Lippard, E. T. C., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2019). The devasting clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect: Increased disease vulnerability and poor treatment response in mood disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 177 (1), 1–96. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010020
Loveland, K. K., & Olley, J. G. (1979). The effect of external reward on interest and quality of task performance in children of high and low intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 50 (4), 1207–1210. doi.org/10.2307/1129350
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interactions. Handbook of Child Psychology, 1–101.
Mageau, G. A., Lessard, J., Carpentier, J., Robichaud, J, Joussemet, M., & Koestner, R. (2018). Effectiveness and acceptability beliefs regarding logical consequences and mild punishments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 54 , 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.11.001
Massullo, C., De Rossi, E., Carbone, G. A., Imperatori, C., Ardito, R. B., Adenzato, M., & Farina, B. (2023). Child maltreatment, abuse, and neglect: An umbrella review of their prevalence and definitions. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 20 (2), 72–99. https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20230201
Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children (Basel, Switzerland), 5 (7), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5070098
Mehus, C. J., & Patrick, M. E., (2021). Prevalence of spanking in US national sample of 35-year-old parents from 1993 to 2017. JAMA Pediatrics, 175 (1), 92–94. doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2197
Miralles, P., Godoy, C., & Hidalgo, M. D. (2021), Long-term emotional consequences of parental alienation exposure in children of divorced parents: A systematic review. Current Psychology, 42 , 12055–12069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02537-2
Morris, A. S.. & Hays-Grudo, J. (2023). Protective and compensatory childhood experiences and their impact on adult mental health. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) , 22 (1), 150–151. doi.org/10.1002/wps.21042
Mowen, T. J., & Schroeder, R. D. (2018). Maternal parenting style and delinquency by race and the moderating effect of structural disadvantage. Youth & Society, 50 (2), 139–159. doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15598028
National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2024). How early childhood trauma is unique . https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-...trauma/effects
Neubauer, A. B., Schmidt, A., Kramer, A. C., & Schmiedek, F. (2021). A little autonomy support goes a long way: Daily autonomy-supportive parenting, child well-being, parental need fulfillment, and change in child, family, and parent adjustment across the adaptation in the COVID-19 pandemic. Child Development, 92 (5), 1679–1697. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13515
Newland, E. (2021). Indigenous children in Canada’s foster care system: Bill C-92 and the importance of cultural identity. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 42 (1), 59.
Norman, R. E., Byambaa, M., De, R., Butchart, A., Scott, J., & Van, T. (2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 9 (11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349
Perrigo, J. L., Palmer Molina, A., Hurlburt, M. S., & Finno-Velasquez, M. (2023). Exploring the drivers of child maltreatment under-and overreporting: A qualitative study. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services , 10443894231187441.
Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24 (1), 75–100. doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149
Price, J. (2008). Parent-child quality time: Does birth order matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 43 (1), 240–265. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.767444
Robichaud, J., Lessard, J., Labelle, L., & Mageau, G. A. (2020). The role of logical consequences and autonomy support in children’s anticipated reactions of anger and empathy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29 (6), 1511–1524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01594-3
Roubinov, D. S., & Boyce, W. T. (2017). Parenting and SES: Relative values or enduring principles? Current Opinions in Psychology, 15, 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.copsyc.2017.03.001
Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of organisms . Appleton-Century.
Smith-Greenaway, E., & Clark, S. (2017). Variation in the link between parental divorce and children’s health disadvantage in low and high divorce settings. Population Health, 3, 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.04.004
Tavassolie, T., Dudding, S., Madigan, A. L., Thorvardarson, E., & Winsler, A. (2016). Differences in perceived parenting styles between mothers and fathers: Implications for child outcomes and marital conflict. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (6), 2055–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0376-y
Tucker, C. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2015). The state of interventions for sibling conflict and aggression: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1–11. doi.org/10.1177/1524838015622438
United Nations. (1990). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. www.ohchr.org/en/instruments...n-rights-child
Villarejo, S., Garcia, O. F., Alcaide, M., Villarreal, M. E., & Garcia, F. (2024). Early family experiences, drug use, and psychosocial adjustment across the lifespan: Is parental strictness always a protective factor? Psychosocial Interventions, 33 (1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2023a16
Werchan, D. M., Ku, S., Berry, D., & Blair, C. (2023). Sensitive caregiving and reward responsibility: A novel mechanism linking parenting and executive functions development in early childhood. Developmental Science, 26 (7). doi.org/10.1111/desc.13293
Yim, E. P. (2022). Effects of Asian cultural values on parenting style and young children’s perceived competence: A cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905093