Baumrind's Parenting Styles and Their Relationship to the

W
Parent Developmental Theory

IEBy

Rebecca Hale, M.S. Ed.

EV
PR

A Doctoral Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Psychology

in the Department of Psychology at Pace University

New York

2008
 UMI Number: 3319535

Copyright 2008 by
Hale, Rebecca

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

W
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
EV
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3319535
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 PSY.D PROJECT FINAL APPROVAL FORM

NAME: Rebecca Hale. M.S. Ed.

TITLE OF PROJECT: Baumrind's Parenting Styles and Their Relationship

to the Parent Development Theory

DOCTORAL PROJECT COMMITTEE:

PROJECT ADVISOR: Barbara Mowder. Ph.D.

Name

Director of Psychology Graduate Programs Pace University

W
Title Affiliation

PROJECT CONSULTANT. Anastasia Yasik. Ph.D.

IE
Name

Associate Professor Pace University

Title Affiliation
EV
PR

FINAL APPROVAL OF COMPLETED PROJECT:

I have read thefinalversion of the doctoral project and certify that it meets the relevant requirements
for the Psy.D. degree in S<Aool-Clinical Child Psychology.

if/// Jzooy
oject Advisor's Signature Date

Si'ill
tflMQl
Project Consuftint's Signature Daljb
 Ill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to give a special thank you to my advisor, Dr. Mowder, who instilled

confidence in me and who continues to inspire me to be excited about research in the field of

psychology. I would also like to thank my consultant, Dr. Yasik, who invested her time and hard

work in helping me perfect my project. Another special thanks to Steve Salbod, who put in much

effort showing and teaching me how to analyze my data. Furthermore, thank you to Dr. Sossin,

W
who taught me so much about parenting and continues to show an interest in my work. And

thank you to all the psychology faculty and staff at Pace University.
IE
To my family and friends, thank you for always supporting me and encouraging me

throughout these past few years. In particular, thank you to my parents, who have always been
EV
there for me and who have always given me the opportunity to complete my goals in life.. .and

thank you to my sisters Amanda and Wendy, who I could not have gotten by without.
PR
 IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER I Introduction 1

CHAPTER II Review of the Literature 10

Introduction 10

W
Baumrind's Research 10

Assessment of Baumrind's Parenting Styles

IE 20

Current Research Relating Parenting Style to Specific Child Outcomes 22

Variables Affecting the Development of Parenting Styles 25

EV

The Development of the Parent Role 36

The Parent Development Theory (PDT) 42

PR

An In-Depth Look at Studies Specifically Related to the PDT 51

Variables that Effect Parenting Beliefs, Attitudes, Perceptions,

and Parenting Behaviors 53

The Link Between Parenting Perception, Parenting Behavior,

and Parenting Roles 62

CHAPTER III Method 66

Introduction 66

Participants 67

Instruments 68

Procedure 70
CHAPTER IV Results 72

Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses 72

CHAPTER V Discussion 100

Review and Discussion of Results 100

Implications of research for the PDT Theory 107

Implications for Clinicians and School Psychologists 108

Limitations 110

Directions for Future Research 112

W
Summary and Conclusions 113

REFERENCES IE 115

APPENDICES 122

Appendix A: Informed Consent 139

EV

Appendix B: Parenting Style Questionnaire 141

Appendix C: Parenting Behaviors Importance Questionnaire 143

PR
 VI

LIST OF TABELS

TABLE PAGE

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Sample 67

Table 2 Correlations of the Means for each Parent Role Characteristic

Importance Subscale with each other, Descriptive Statistics,

and Coefficient Alphas 74

Table 3 Independent Samples T-Test for assessing Significant Mean Difference

between Parenting Styles and Parent Role Characteristic Importance 75

W
Table 4 Independent Samples T-Test for assessing Significant Mean

Difference between Gender and Parent Role Characteristic Importance

IE 76

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviation for PBIQ Scales by PSQ and Gender 77

Table 6 Summary of 2 x 2 ANOVA (F, Partial Eta Squared, and p-values)

EV
for PBIQ Scales by PSQ and Gender 78

Table 7 Univariate ANOVA results for the Interaction between Parenting Style

and Parent role Characteristic (Discipline) as a Function of Gender 78

PR

Table 8 Univariate ANOVA results for the Interaction between Parenting Style

and Parent role Characteristic (Sensitivity) as a Function of Gender 79

Table 9 Independent Samples T-Test for assessing Significant Mean Difference

between Ethnicity and Parent Role Characteristic Importance 81

Table 10 Means and Standard Deviation for PBIQ Scales by PSQ and Ethnicity 82

Table 11 Summary of 2 x 2 ANOVA (F, Partial Eta Squared, and p-values)

for PBIQ Scales by PSQ and Ethnicity 83

Table 12 Univariate ANOVA results for the Interaction between Parenting Style and

Parent role Characteristic (General Welfare and Protection) as a

Function of Ethnicity 83
 Vll

Table 13 Independent Samples T-Test for assessing Significant Mean Difference

between Parent Status and Parent Role Characteristic Importance 85

Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Parent Style and Parenting Role Characteristic

Importance as a Function of Parenting Status 86

Table 15 ANOVA results for Parent Style and Parenting Role Characteristic

Importance as a Function of Parenting Status 87

Table 16 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritative Parenting Style and Participant Gender 88

W
Table 17 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Characteristic Importance

Differences of Authoritative Parenting Style and Participant Age

IE 89

Table 18 Multiple Comparisons, Post-Hoc results for Parent Role Characteristic

EV
Importance Differences of Authoritative Parenting Styles

and Participant Age 90

Table 19 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

PR

Authoritative Parenting Style and Parent Status 92

Table 20 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritative Parenting Style and Marital Status 93

Table 21 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritative Parenting Style and Ethnicity 94

Table 22 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritarian Parenting Style and Participant Gender 95

Table 23 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritarian Parenting Style and Ethnicity 96

Table 24 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritarian Parenting Style and Participant Age 97

 viii

Table 25 Within Group Analysis assessing Parent Role Differences of

Authoritarian Parenting Style and Marital Status 98

W
IE
EV
PR
 IX

ABSTRACT

Research has explored the various beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions upheld by parents as

well as behaviors performed by parents. However, few studies have demonstrated a strong

relationship between the link between parenting role characteristics and parenting behavior.

Baumrind identified three central models of parental control: permissive, authoritarian,

and authoritative. Based on the review of the literature, authoritative parenting styles have been

associated with many successful child developmental outcomes. Permissive and authoritarian

parenting styles have not been found to have these same positive effects on child outcomes.

W
Mowder developed the parent developmental theory (PDT) which provides a framework

for understanding individuals' parenting perceptions and behaviors as well as understanding how
IE
individuals continually reevaluate their ideas about parenting overtime. According to the PDT six

primary characteristics (i.e., bonding, discipline, general welfare and protection, responsivity,
EV
sensitivity) are associated with the parenting role.

This study utilized Baumrind's parenting styles and compared them to Mowder's parent
PR

role characteristics using the Parenting Style Questionnaire and the PBIQ-Revised. Although this

research did not find significant differences between parenting styles and parenting role

characteristics there were significant differences found as a function of gender. In addition, the

main effect of ethnicity was significant as well as an overall significant interaction between

parenting style, ethnicity, and parent role characteristics.

Overall, this research provides a framework to understand the intricacies of parenting

styles and parenting role characteristics through the work of Baumrind and Mowder respectively,

as well as provides clinicians the opportunity to utilize the PBIQ-R developed by Mowder in

evaluating parents' ideas about parent role characteristics they value

 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 1

CHAPTER I

Introduction

It is widely accepted that parenting has long-term implications for children, families, and

society. According to Harari (2005), psychologists endorse the concept that parenting is an

essential component in fostering children's growth and development. Parents are expected to

offer responsible caregiving as well as be invested and committed throughout their children's

lives (Baumrind & Thompson, 2002). Consequently, psychologists work with parents to help

guide them and offer parenting techniques or ideas that will be beneficial to children. However,

W
throughout history there have been many different points of view about how one should parent

children and what roles parents play in their children's lives.

IE
Before the 19 century, religion and philosophy guided parenting. Children were thought

of as "a refractory savage, a small adult, or an angelic bundle from heaven" (Baumrind, 1966, p.
EV
888). However, those theories had no scientific evidence and were based on humanistic values.

Scientific study of parenting roles did not develop until the 1800's and began with grand, all-
PR

encompassing theories of parenting. Throughout history, these grand theories (e.g.,

psychoanalytic theory, behaviorism) have been refined and have begun to concentrate on specific

behavioral domains or specific age periods. These original theories viewed parents as the

transmitters of knowledge; that children were empty vessels that were continually being filled

with information (Maccoby, 1992).

Psychoanalytic theory was developed in the beginning of the twentieth century by

Sigmund Freud and continues to be reviewed and expanded upon today. When thinking

analytically, parenting is considered particularly important because children are considered to be

extremely impressionable and the child-parent relationship is viewed to have enormous effects on

child outcomes (Eisenberg & Valiente, 2002). The theory is based upon the idea that children are

driven by sexuality and aggression and parents must help contain these drives. Furthermore,

children experience conflict regarding loving their parents and needing their nurturance versus
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 2

fearing that they will be rejected. Since these sexual wishes are directed toward the opposite-sex

parent, children fear rejection by the same sex parent. In order to insure not being rejected,

children identify with the same sex parent and incorporate their parents' behavior, attitudes, and

values, forming a superego/conscience. Children are driven by fear, anxiety, and guilt (Freud,

1959).

Therefore, psychoanalytic theory indicates that parents have much control over their

children's behaviors. Parents' role should revolve around the psycho-sexual stages of development

and aggressive drives of their children which develop within the first four to five years of life.

W
Using this theory, parents were advised to be more concerned with children's emotional states

than with specific behaviors. Parents were advised to fully gratify and accept their children's
IE
needs (e.g., infantile sucking, excretory, genital needs) rather than prepare children for adulthood

through rules and discipline (Baumrind, 1966). According to psychoanalytic thought, children
EV
develop moral values, standards, and norms for their behavior by the process of identification

with their parents (Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey, 1970). For example, Spock (1946)
PR

advocated for freedom of choice and self-expressions as well as moderate disciplinary styles. He

further suggested that poor parenting was detrimental and extremely difficult to rectify later in

life.

Parenting roles were also explored through the behaviorism point of view, which stressed

the importance of learning through experience (Maccoby, 1992). Children were close to being

considered "tabula rasa" with the exception of reflexes and need states. More specifically, parents

were considered teachers, and children the learners or passive beings. Researchers applied

classical and instrumental conditioning to the parent-child relationship, postulating that children

learn appropriate behavior from their parents through rewards and punishments (Eisenberg &

Valiente, 2002). This theory also speculated that parents set up contingencies, where children

were able to discriminate the specific situations in which certain behaviors were appropriate or

inappropriate. In addition, habits were considered learned as well as modified through operant
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 3

conditioning. Even emotions were considered actions that could be controlled by this manner

(Gerwitz, 1969).

In the 1930's and 1940's, Piaget began thinking about assessing the development of

children at different stages in their lives. Piaget theorized that children's development occurred

through the active processes of assimilation (i.e., the process of incorporating features of the

environment into already existing ways of thinking about them) and accommodation (i.e.,the

process of modifying existing modes of thought). These two processes allow children's

knowledge to become more differentiated over time (Piaget, 1952). Children develop rational

W
thinking as well as experience different stages of development; thus, environmental experiences

are essential for the growth of intelligence (Miller, 1989). Consequently, according to this point
IE
of view, parenting styles need to change and develop with the increasing cognitive capacities of

children. In addition, parents need to ensure that children have the opportunities that will allow
EV

them to organize their experiences through the processes equilibration. In accordance with this

model, parents foster their children's development by providing experiences for adaptation (e.g.,
PR

assimilation and accommodation (Santrock, 1995).

In the 1950's and 1960's, cognitive theories of psychology which drew upon

developmental theories and ways of conceptualizing children were prevalent. Consequently, the

behaviorism approach to all aspects of human behavior was weakened. For example, Chomsky

(1959) studied children's development of psycholinguistics. His research revealed that although

parents do play a role in children's development of language, children do not develop prosody,

syntax, and grammar through pure imitation. Children develop language independently of what is

specifically taught, thereby making children as important as parents in the process of learning

language. Chomsky's psycholinguistic theory was somewhat consistent with Piaget's

developmental theory in that children acquire cognitive abilities (Maccoby, 1992).

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, theories of attachment began to develop. Bowlby

explored the work of Lorenz and Harlow, elaborating on their theory that most species that bare
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 4

children who are not developmentally ready to survive on their own have an innate tendency to

form a bond and become attached to a caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). According to Bowlby the key

concepts of attachment are the tendency to seek proximity with the primary caregiver, resistance

and distress at times of separation, and feelings of security when with the primary caregiver.

Bowlby argues that the attachment process is present throughout the lifespan, and attachment

behavior characterizes individuals from birth to old age. At a young age, children develop internal

working models which are mental representations of expectations of the self and others. These

models that develop in infancy will facilitate thoughts, feelings and behaviors regarding what

W
relationships are supposed to be like, and subsequently determine the kind of close relationships

that infants have in the future (Bowlby, 1973).

IE
In 1978, Ainsworth continued to explore attachment and developed a method for

assessing individual differences in infants' attachment to their primary caregiver. Ainsworth

EV
created the Strange Situation, a research paradigm. In this situation, Ainsworth observed the

infants' proximity-maintenance, safe haven, and secure-base behaviors in an unfamiliar

PR

environment. Ainsworth classified three distinct attachment styles: securely attached, anxious-

ambivalent, and avoidant attachment (Ainsworth, 1978).

Both Bowlby and Ainsworth emphasized that parents need to be responsive to their

children's needs. They discovered that responsiveness does not elicit further dependency needs

and that crying is not reinforced by responding to babies; crying actually decreases, allowing the

baby to feel comfortable in breaking away from the parent appropriately and exploring the

environment. They discovered that children internalize the quality of the relationship with

parents. Therefore, the role that the parent takes on is what promotes internal representations of

trust and openness in children's development (Sroufe & Walters, 1977).

During the 1960's Bandura was studying imitative learning, where children were

secondarily reinforced for behaving like adults. Bandura spoke of vicarious learning, which is the

concept that children learn through watching others without necessarily performing the behavior
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 5

themselves (Bandura, 1965). He expanded on this idea and developed social learning theory.

Contemporary social learning theory focuses on learning occurring within a social context. This

theory considers that people learn from one another, and includes concepts such as observational

learning, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1986). For example, Resnik, Bearman and Blum's

(1997) research indicated that children observe their parents and, through this action, obtain

information about how people act in personal relationships. Thus, if parents treat each other with

disrespect, then children tend to exhibit this same behavior in their relationships. In addition,

cognitions play a role in learning. Awareness and expectations of future reinforcements or

W
punishments can have a major effect on the behaviors that people exhibit (Bandura, 1975).

Although this theory was not a developmental theory per se, and extrapolated much from the
IE
behaviorism point of view, the concepts of symbolic representation and processing information of

specific situations are relevent. The skills that Bandura discussed ultimately relied upon, and were
EV
a product of, increasing cognitive development (Maccoby, 1992).

Hoffman's (1970) research indicated that when children were able to understand the
PR

consequences of their wrong doing in regard to others, this was more effective than withdrawal of

love from their parents, or punishment, in their moral development. Hoffman (1983) outlined

three categories of discipline: inductive techniques, power-assertive discipline, and love-

withdrawal techniques. Inductive techniques were considered most effective when parents taught

children how their behaviors affected others as well as offered a reparative action. Inductive

techniques promoted high levels of internalization. Power-assertive discipline is analogous to

punishment, physical force, threats, and taking away of privileges or possessions. These

techniques are based on fear and do not promote internalization of moral values. Love-withdrawal

is consistent with parents expressing anger to children by ignoring, not listening, or isolating the

child. Hoffman indicates that both power-assertive discipline and love-withdrawal techniques

only elicit fear and anxiety of the consequence and do not empower children to have empathy or

concern for others. This indicates that parents should take on the role of teaching their children
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 6

the consequences of their actions in order for children to begin to acquire internalized moral

norms.

More recent parenting theories conceptualize the parent-child relationship as bi-

directional and interactional. Video technology has allowed researchers to further understand the

mother-child interaction and study concepts such as joint focus of attention, shared emotional

experiences, and understanding each others intention (Maccoby, 1992). For example, Trevarthen

(2005) discussed intersubjectivity and the importance of parents matching their infant's responses

in order to engage in a rhythmic relationship. Thus parent and child gain awareness of each other

W
and build a reciprocal confidence as well as trust and companionship in the relationship.

More specifically, parents influence children's behavior as well as children influence

IE
parents' behavior and these behaviors have interactional effects (Patterson & Fisher, 2002).

Anderson, Lytton, and Romney (1986) compared the reactions of mothers of boys with Conduct
EV
Disorder with mothers of typical boys. This study indicates that children's behavior has more

influence than their mother's behavior in the development of conduct disorder, as the results
PR

demonstrate that mother-child interactions are determined primarily by the child and not the

mother. This study also provided evidence that when mothers of typical boys interacted with the

conduct-disordered boys; mothers' behaviors became more aversive than when they interacted

with their own sons. Psychopharmacological studies (Barkley, 1981) have also shown that when

hyperactive children were administered a stimulant drug, mothers of these children became less

aversive in their parenting behavior. Higher doses of this medication were related to a decrease in

aversive parenting (Barkley, Karlsson, Pollard, & Murphy, 1985).

Furthermore, in order to examine the long-term effects of deviant family processes,

Patterson, Bank and Stoolmiller (1990) conducted a longitudinal study with 4th grade boys who

demonstrated anti-social behavior. The researchers viewed the children's antisocial behavior

using a social interactional perspective and developed a mediated model for family stress which

suggests that child stressors (e.g., pubertal maturation, changes in school, residence, and family
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 7

structure) may be disruptors for parenting practices (e.g., discipline, monitoring). Patterson and

Fisher (2002) suggest that the breakdown in parental discipline and/or modeling may have a

relationship with the parent's deficiencies, but may also be related to their exceptionally

problematic child.

One investigator, Baumrind (1966, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1996), has dominated the research

on parenting. According to Maccoby (1992), Baumrind's first area of research was adult

leadership styles. Here she found that the most advantageous leadership style was one that

combined democracy and authority. These findings became useful when they were applied to the

W
study of parenting and debunked the psychoanalytic notion that the ideal parent should be

permissive without punishment or restriction. Baumrind (1966, 1971) identified three central
IE
models of parental control: permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. Throughout the years she

identified the authoritative style of parenting, which possesses both high levels of demandingness
EV
and responsiveness, as the most effective style of parenting (Baumrind, 1996). Authoritative

parenting is further defined as a style in which parents set standards for their children's conduct,

which is consistent with developing needs. Parents believe that they should discuss and explain
PR

matters of discipline with their children. Authoritative parenting styles have been associated with

positive child outcomes such as successful developmental outcomes (Belsky, 1984); successful

academic performance (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg,

Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992); increased competence, autonomy, and self-esteem

(Baumrind, 1989); more well-rounded peer group orientation (Durbin, Darling, Steinberg, &

Brown, 1993); and healthy adjustment (Kaufmann et al., 2000).

Permissive and authoritarian parenting styles have not been found to have these same

positive effects on child outcomes. Permissive parenting is associated with high levels of

responsiveness. Permissive parents place few demands on their children and hold the belief that

children should be given freedom to do as they choose (Baurmind, 1966, 1971). On the other

hand, authoritarian parenting is associated with only high levels of demandingness (Baumrind
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 8

1996), where parents place much value on children's obedience and conformity. Authoritarian

parents hold onto the belief that children should accept the rules and discipline set forth by their

parents (Baurmind, 1966, 1971). Baumrind (1966, 1971, 1996) provided substantial research on

parents and her model of parenting style is the most widely cited and empirically validated model

of parenting in the literature. However, her model is specific to disciplinary style and does not

include who parents are, how a parenting role develops, or how parents perceive their role.

Mowder (1993, 2005) has developed the Parent Development Theory (PDT), which

investigates how a parenting role develops. She considered parenting by examining the important

W
social role which parents take. Research with regard to the PDT reveals that individuals tend to

perceive the parent role as consisting of six primary characteristics: bonding, discipline,
IE
education, general welfare and protection, responsivity, and sensitivity. Although these

characteristics are viewed as principal components of parenting by the majority of individuals, the
EV
relative weighting in terms of importance and frequency does varies.

The work of Baumrind has been cited in almost all psychology articles which discuss
PR

parenting; however, there have been no studies that have directly linked her work to the PDT. In

addition, Baumrind's three parenting styles are usually only associated with discipline. However,

these parenting styles may be related to other areas of parenting as well, such as bonding,

education, general welfare and protection, responsivity, and sensitivity. Thus the goal of the

present study is to examine parenting styles characterized by Baumrind (1966, 1971, 1996) and

their relationship to individuals' perceptions of all six parenting roles as defined by Mowder

(1993, 2005), with the following questions in mind:

1. Is there a relationship between a particular parenting style (i.e., authoritarian,

authoritative, permissive) and particular parent role characteristic importance (e.g.,

bonding, discipline, education, general welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity,

negative parenting behaviors)or combinations of characteristics?

 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 9

2. Does the relationship between parenting styles and parent role characteristic

importance vary as a function of gender?

3. Does the relationship between parenting styles and parent role characteristic

importance vary as a function of ethnicity?

W
IE
EV
PR
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 10

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

Introduction

This chapter presents a collection of Baumrind's (1966, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1996)

research, the literature that first relates parenting style behaviors to specific child outcomes, and

the variables that affect the development of different parenting styles that are associated with

Baumrind's work. Next this chapter discusses Mowder's (1993, 2005) Parent Development

Theory (PDT), provides an in-depth look at studies specifically related to the PDT, and discusses

W
specific variables affecting parenting beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and parenting behaviors.

Finally, this chapter explores the link between parenting perceptions/parenting beliefs, parenting
IE
behavior, parenting styles, and parenting roles
EV
Baumrind's Research

This section provides an overview of Baumrind's (1966, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1996)

research, exploring the development of Baumrind's parenting styles and her research related to
PR

specific child outcomes. In the mid to late 1960's, Baumrind began researching parenting styles

and their relation to child behavior. Baumrind (1966) explored the effects of authoritative parental

control on child behavior. Her article discusses three models of parental control (i.e., permissive,

authoritarian, authoritative). Her definitions are operationalized and compared. Baumrind

described the permissive parent as a parent who

attempts to behave in a nonpunitive, acceptant, and affirmative manner toward

the child's impulses, desires, and action. She consults with him about policy

decisions and gives explanations for family rules. She makes few demands for

household responsibility and orderly behavior. She presents herself to the child

as a resource for him to use as he wishes, not as an ideal for him to emulate, nor

as an active agent responsible for shaping or altering his ongoing or future

 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 11

behavior. She allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible,

avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally

defined standards. She attempts to use reason and manipulation, but not overt

power, to accomplish her ends (Bamurind, 1966, p. 889).

The idea of permissive parenting gradually grew out of the idea that children who have too many

demands placed upon them would consequently develop anxiety and feel inadequate (Frank,

1940). Neil (1964) wrote about how, in order for children to be self-regulated and live freely, they

should not have any limitations placed upon them, leaving them to be impulsive and careless.

W
Neil further reinforced his views against authority by supporting the belief that children

need to develop their own opinions and make their own decisions. Baurmind defined an
IE
authoritarian parent as a parent who

attempts to shape control and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in
EV

accordance with a set standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard,

theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority. She values

PR

obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at

points where the child's actions or beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right

conduct. She believes in household responsibilities in order to inculcate respect

for work. She regards the perseveration of order and traditional structure as a

highly valued end in iteslf. She does not encourage verbal give and take,

believing that the child should accept her word for what is right (Baumrind,

1966, p. 890).

Baumrind further discussed the idea that the authoritarian perspective stems from past centuries

when children needed to be taught to follow the word of God and Divine Will instead of

following their own desires (Baurmind, 1966).

Baumrind described the authoritative parent as a parent who

 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 12

attempts to direct the child's activities in a rational, issue-oriented manner. She

encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her

policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. Both autonomous

self-will and disciplined conformity are valued by the authoritative parent.

Therefore, she exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but does

not hem the child in with restrictions. She enforces her own perspective as an

adult, but recognizes the child's individual interests and special ways. The

authoritative parent affirms the child's present qualities, but also sets standards

W
for future conduct. She uses reason, power, and shaping by regime and

reinforcement to achieve her objectives and does not base her decisions on group
IE
consensus or the individual child's desires (Baumrind, 1966, p. 891).

The authoritative ideal comes from the thoughts of Dewey (1916) and Montessori (1915) that
EV
asserted that discipline and the child interest should work together. Children should not be

allowed complete freedom, expectations should be placed upon them that are appropriate for their

age and stage of development (Rambusch, 1962).

PR

Baumrind (1966) reviewed 12 studies which had collected data on parents and children from

direct, repeated observations in a laboratory setting. In these studies only interviews or direct

observation were used to characterize parent behavior rather than personality questionnaires

(Baldwin 1948; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Baumrind 1967; Becker et al., 1962; Finney, 1961;

Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Hoffman 1960; Kagan & Moss, 1962; McCord, McCord & Howard

1961; Schaefer & Bayley 1963; Sears, Whiting, Nowlis & Sears, 1953; Watson, 1957). By

analyzing the above studies, Baurmind was able to explore the relationship between several

dimensions of parental control and behavior of nursery school and school-age children. Using

these studies she was also able to take a critical look at eight propositions with regard to

disciplinary techniques and child behavior.

 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 13

The first proposition reviewed was that punishment has inevitable harmful side effects

and is an ineffective means of controlling child behavior. Baurmind found that punitive and

hostile disciplinary practices have a clear relationship with cognitive and emotional problems in

children, which include "hostile withdrawal, hostile acting out, dependency, personality

problems, nervousness, and reduced schoolroom efficiency" (Baumrind, 1966, p. 896). However,

she found that mild punishment, administered by a parents who love and respect their child, may

actually have beneficial side effects. These findings were substantiated by Soloman (1964) and

Walters, Parke and Cane (1965). Factors that must be considered when using punishment include

W
timing and accompanying the punishment with an explanation (Baumrind, 1966).

The next proposition evaluated was that close supervision, high demands, and other
IE
manifestations of parental authority provoke rebelliousness in children, particularly during

adolescence. This statement was only found to be true if the parent was also found to be
EV
repressive, hostile, and restrictive. In general, parents who were found to have high demands for

their children, in combination with being warm and rational, also provided a safe environment for
PR

their child and were concerned about their child's general welfare (Baumrind, 1966).

Firm parental control generates passivity and dependence was the third proposition

explored. Baumrind's conclusion suggests that firm control can actually initiate assertive behavior

(as well as less rebelliousness) if a parent is also understanding, warm, and autonomy-granting.

However, children will be less passive if their parent is controlling as well as cold and restrictive.

This is because children use the parents as a model for their own behavior (Baumrind, 1966).

The fourth proposition assessed was that parental restrictiveness decreases normal self-

assertiveness and buoyancy. Baumrind was unable to draw conclusions about this statement

because the definition of restrictiveness could not be compared from study to study and suggested

that the variables, autonomy and restrictiveness, needed to be further correlated with other

variables such as hostility (Baumrind, 1966). More recently Reti et al., (2002) investigated the

parenting behavior with regard to restrictiveness and denial of psychological autonomy. These
 Baumrind's Parenting Styles 14

researchers found that adult males who demonstrated antisocial traits were associated with having

mothers who demonstrated low maternal care and high maternal behavioral restrictiveness.

Females who demonstrated antisocial traits were associated with fathers who demonstrated low

paternal care and mothers who denied them of psychological autonomy.

Permissiveness frees the child from the presence and authority of the parent was the fifth

proposition reviewed. Baumrind concluded that a non-interfering adult is more likely to increase

the chances that a socially disapproved behavior will occur in the future even if the child thinks

that the behavior is unacceptable (Baumrind, 1966). When a parent does not react to a child's

W
misbehavior the child internalizes this neutrality as approval (Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957).

The proposition which reflected that controlling parents are motivated by the
IE
authoritarian personality syndrome and therefore are compelled by fear of loss of control to

restrict the child's self-directed, autonomous efforts was explored next. Baumrind found that this
EV
statement was not always true and that some parents who are authoritarian do also promote

autonomy. She realized in order to explore this statement further, researchers need to evaluate and
PR

separate authoritarian parents into two categories: those parents who provide firm control and

those parents who restrict their child's autonomy (Baurmind, 1966).

The seventh proposition reviewed was that firm control inhibits the child's creative thrust.

Getzels and Jackson's (1961) research indicated that parents who exhibit firm control and who are

also intrusive may hinder non-verbal creative achievement. However, these same parents may

improve cognitive and verbal achievement.

Lastly, Baumrind (1966) explored the eighth proposition, which reflected that similar

patterns of child rearing affect boys and girls differently. Baurmind concluded that there was not

enough known about the intricate, subtle differences in parenting practices in relationship to

gender. She suggested that parenting variables and child variables needed to be more

operationally defined in order to make comparisons (Baumrind, 1966). Her research did suggest

that similar parental practices did indeed affect boys and girls differently. For example, Bayley