Link mother father

http://jfi.sagepub.com/

Journal of Family Issues

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/2/212The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0192513X06294593

2007 28: 212Journal of Family IssuesLeslie Gordon Simons and Rand D. Conger

Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent OutcomesFather Differences in Parenting to a Typology of−Linking Mother

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Family IssuesAdditional services and information for

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/2/212.refs.htmlCitations:

at Manchester Metropolitan (Y) on November 28, 2010jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/2/212

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/2/212.refs.html


212

Linking Mother–FatherDifferences in Parentingto a Typology of FamilyParenting Styles andAdolescent OutcomesLeslie Gordon SimonsUniversity of Georgia, Athens

Rand D. CongerUniversity of California, Davis

Using longitudinal data from a sample of 451 families with a child in eighthgrade at the time of study, three research questions have been addressed:First, the study explored the ways in which mothers and fathers differ withregard to four parenting styles. Second, the study examined the manner inwhich individual parenting styles combine to form family parenting styles.Finally, the study investigated the extent to which these various styles arerelated to delinquency, depression, and school commitment for adolescents.Regardless of reporter, the most common family parenting styles are those inwhich both parents display the same style of parenting. Having two authori-tative parents is associated with the most positive outcomes for adolescents.In the absence of this optimal family parenting style, there is evidence thathaving one authoritative parent can, in most cases, buffer a child from thedeleterious consequences associated with less optimal styles of parenting.

Keywords: parenting; adolescence; delinquency; depression; schoolcommitment

During the past three decades, a profusion of studies have investigatedthe impact of parenting style on child development. Most of this

research has examined the effects of four styles of parenting: authoritative,

Journal of Family IssuesVolume 28 Number 2

February 2007 212-241© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0192513X06294593http://jfi.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Leslie Gordon Simons, University of Georgia,Department of Child and Family Development, 123 Dawson Hall, Athens, GA 30602; e-mail:[email protected].



Simons, Conger / Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes 213

authoritarian, indulgent, and uninvolved. For the most part, this researchsuggests that children achieve the most positive outcomes when they arereared by authoritative parents (see Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Such parentsare high on both responsiveness and demandingness. Findings indicate thatchildren of authoritative parents, regardless of age, perform better in school,display fewer conduct problems, and show better emotional adjustment thanthose raised in nonauthoritative homes (Baumrind, 1991; Dornbush, Ritter,Liederman, Roberts & Fraliegh, 1987; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Lamborn,Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989;Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts,Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991).

Although past research suggests that children tend to benefit from beingreared by an authoritative parent, much of this research has focused on moth-ers (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Researchers often assess theparenting style of mothers and assume that fathers parent in the same way.Unfortunately, we have little information regarding the extent to which thisassumption is correct. Some studies have assessed the parenting styles of bothmothers and fathers but then have excluded families from analysis if theparents show different parenting styles (Baumrind, 1973). In other instances,researchers have averaged the parenting scores of mothers and fathers(Steinberg et al., 1989; Steinberg et al., 1991). Given these methodologicallimitations, we have little knowledge regarding the extent to which husbandsand wives show similar styles of parenting. We expect that they often displaydifferent approaches to parenting. If this is the case, it raises the issue of themanner in which these contrasting approaches to parenting influence childdevelopment. Past research has shown, for example, that authoritative par-enting is more beneficial to children than indulgent parenting. However, whatare the consequences for the child of being raised by an authoritative motherand an indulgent, authoritarian, or uninvolved father?

The current study is concerned with addressing these issues. First, wecompare the parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, andnegligent/uninvolved) of mothers and fathers. In the course of making thesecomparisons, we construct a typology of family parenting styles consisting ofall possible combinations of mother and father parenting styles. We examinethe frequency with which various family parenting styles tend to occurand the extent to which this prevalence reflects a pattern of similarity(e.g., authoritative-authoritative) versus complementarity (e.g., authoritarian-indulgent). Finally, we investigate the extent to which various family parent-ing styles are related to positive and negative outcomes for adolescents. We



are particularly concerned with identifying instances of either amplification(e.g., two authoritative parents are better than one) or buffering effects (e.g.,an authoritative parent can compensate for the effects of an negligent/uninvolved parent).

We perform these analyses using two waves of data from a sample of sev-eral hundred two-parent families living in the Midwest. Both child reports andobserver ratings are used to classify parenting styles. Our measures allow us toestablish classification cut-points that are less arbitrary than those used in muchof the past research. School commitment, conduct problems, and psychologi-cal depression are used as child outcomes. The following literature review pro-vides a more detailed explanation of the research questions addressed in ouranalyses.

Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes

Baumrind (1971) used the dimension of parental control to characterizethree parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and indulgent). Maccobyand Martin (1983) expanded Baumrind’s work by adding responsiveness asa second dimension. Using the two dimensions of demandingness andresponsiveness, they formed a fourfold typology of parenting styles.

Parents who are high on both dimensions are categorized as authoritative.These parents combine warmth and support with enforcement of rules anduse of sanctions when necessary. Authoritarian parents are high on control butlow on responsiveness. They emphasize rigid behavior standards, place a pre-mium on obedience, and are emotionally distant and unresponsive. Indulgentparents are high on responsiveness but low on demandingness. These parentstake a tolerant, accepting attitude toward the child’s impulses, use little pun-ishment, and avoid asserting authority or imposing controls or restrictions.Finally, parents who are low on both demandingness and responsiveness arelabeled uninvolved. These parents maintain a cold and distant relationshipwith their child. Oftentimes such parents respond to intrusions by their childwith hostility and rejection.

As noted earlier, researchers often only classify the parenting styles of moth-ers. When studies have the categorized parenting styles of both parents, therehas been little focus on the ways in which the parenting styles of mothers andfathers coexist and the impact of these various patterns on child development.For example, Baumrind (1973) classified families as authoritative, authoritar-ian, or indulgent, but both parents had to display the same parenting style or thefamily was not included in the classification. Although Baumrind found strong

214 Journal of Family Issues



concordance on parenting style between parents, one quarter of the sample wasomitted from the analyses because the mother and father did not display thesame style of parenting. Using Baumrind’s categories, Dornbush et al. (1987)employed a somewhat different strategy to identify family parenting styles. If afamily scored in the top one third on one parenting style index and not in thetop one third on either of the two other indices, they were defined as having apure parenting style. This accounted for only one half of the families in thestudy. Families that were not coded as having a pure parenting style were con-sidered inconsistent. Adolescents with inconsistent parents tended to report alower academic grade point average than those with parents having a pure style,leading the authors to conclude that a pure style is more effective and desirablethan an inconsistent style. Unfortunately, their approach did not take intoaccount the possibility that some inconsistent combinations may be more effec-tive than others. It also failed to test for buffering effects. The positive effects ofone authoritative parent, for example, may buffer the child from the negativeeffects associated with one of the other parenting styles.

Steinberg et al. (1989) and Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Darling(1994) identified family parenting styles by averaging the scores of mothersand fathers. Unfortunately, there are instances where this strategy leads to themisclassification of families. For example, a family would be classified asauthoritative if one parent displays an indulgent style of parenting (high onresponsiveness, low on demandingness) while the other parent is authoritar-ian (low on responsiveness, high on demandingness). The averaging strategyis also limited because it is not able to address important theoretical questionsregarding the consequences for children when the mother and father have dif-ferent styles of parenting. Past research has demonstrated that the outcomesfor children vary largely by the style of parenting they receive. Thus, it isimportant to document whether having an indulgent/authoritarian combina-tion produces the same positive outcomes as having two authoritative parents.

More recent, Fletcher, Steinberg, and Sellers (1999) focused on the fourpure styles of parenting as well as some of the interparentally inconsistentcombinations. Although this study improved on previous investigations offamily parenting styles, it also suffered certain methodological limitations.For example, only families in which both the mother and father scored ineither the top or bottom third of the distribution for both the responsivenessscale and the demandingness scale were included. This resulted in well morethan one half of the families being excluded from the analyses.

Using the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology, there are 16 possible par-enting style combinations. The present study investigates the prevalence ofeach. We expect that some combinations are much more prevalent than others.




For example, research shows that mate selection involves an assortativeprocess, whereby individuals tend to marry someone with characteristics sim-ilar to their own. This suggests that a hostile, antisocial individual is apt tomarry another person who is hostile and antisocial, with the likely result beingtwo angry, uninvolved parents. Similarly, persons with an indulgent, laissez-faire approach to life may be drawn to each other, with both displaying a ten-dency toward an indulgent parenting style. Similarity of parenting styles mayalso be produced by socialization effects (Buss, 1984). Through a process ofmutual influence husbands and wives may gradually acquire similar perspec-tives on parenting. Thus, as a consequence of assortative mating and social-ization effects, we expect three combinations to be overrepresented among thevarious types of family parenting styles: an authoritative mother and father, anindulgent mother and father, and an uninvolved/uninvolved mother and father.

On the other hand, we expect the combination of two authoritarian parentsto be rather rare. This prediction is based on our belief that there is usually noroom for two authoritarian parents in one family as both will want to be in con-trol of family decision making. Therefore, if one of the parents is authoritar-ian, we anticipate that the other will be either authoritative, indulgent, oruninvolved. Furthermore, based on sex role socialization, we expect mothersto be overrepresented in styles high in nurturance (indulgent and authoritative)and fathers to be overrepresented in styles characterized by strong control(authoritarian and authoritative). Based on this idea, Baumrind (1991) sug-gests a possibly common combination that she calls traditional parenting.This refers to a family parenting style in which the mother and father enact tra-ditional gender roles. In such cases, the mother is significantly more respon-sive than demanding, whereas the father is significantly more demanding thanresponsive. Findings from Berk (1985), Parke (1996), and Coltrane (2000)provide support for the idea that parents often display such a division of labor.This suggests that there should be an overrepresentation of family parentingstyles consisting of an indulgent mother combined with an authoritarian father.

Bulanda (2004) and Sabattini and Leaper (2004) have noted, however, thatfathers with a traditional gender ideology show less parental involvement thanthose with an egalitarian ideology. This would suggest that the consequence oftraditional sex role socialization is likely to be an overrepresentation of familyparenting styles containing either an authoritative or an indulgent mother withan uninvolved father. The present article investigates these various hypothesesregarding the prevalence of various family parenting styles.

As noted earlier, there is strong evidence that children achieve the mostpositive developmental outcomes when they are reared by authoritativeparents. Such parents are high on both responsiveness and control. More than




three decades of research has shown that authoritative parenting is positivelyrelated to school commitment, psychological well-being, and social adjust-ment and negatively related to conduct problems and delinquency (Dornbushet al., 1987; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al.,1989; Steinberg et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992). Although these studiesprovide important information regarding the link between various parentingstyles and adolescent developmental outcomes, they do not address the issueof the consequences for children when parents engage in different styles ofparenting. Past research on interparental inconsistency has focused primarilyon specific parental behaviors (e.g., inconsistent expectations for the child)rather than inconsistencies in parenting style.

A few studies have investigated the association between family parentingstyles and adolescent outcomes, but as we have noted, there are variousmethodological problems associated with their approach. They either assumethat both parents display the same parenting style, delete families in whichmothers and fathers show different styles, or average the styles of mothersand fathers. The study by Fletcher et al. (1999) explicitly considered theimpact of various combinations of parenting styles on adolescent outcomes.They found that adolescents with one authoritative parent exhibited greateracademic competence than did peers with parents who showed similar butnonauthoritative styles. Furthermore, adolescents with one authoritative andone nonauthoritative parent exhibited greater internalized distress than didthose from families where the parents displayed similar styles. Unfortunately,however, the authors used a classification system that excluded more than onehalf of the families. Furthermore, it is only in the case of authoritative par-enting that their analyses addressed the issue of whether the benefits of a par-enting style vary by gender of parent. Thus, for example, an indulgent motherpaired with an uninvolved father was classified as the same family parentingstyle as an uninvolved mother paired with an indulgent father.

The present article goes beyond previous research by examining variationsin adolescent outcomes using all 16 combinations of parenting styles impliedby the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology. This allows all families to beincluded. Three outcomes will be considered: conduct problems, depression,and school commitment. These three outcomes allow us to examine theimpact of family parenting styles on externalizing and internalizing problemsas well as on a major positive outcome—academic commitment.

Our analysis of the associations between family parenting style and ado-lescent outcomes is guided by several research questions. First, we areinterested in whether adolescents achieve better outcomes when they havetwo rather than simply one authoritative parent. Second, we are concerned





with the extent to which an authoritative parent can compensate for the lesscompetent parenting by his or her mate. We expect that the answer to thisquestion varies by the type of style displayed by the second parent.Although a single authoritative parent may be sufficient when the secondparent is indulgent, this may not be the case when the second parent is unin-volved. Furthermore, it may be that the answer to these questions dependson the sex of the parent. Authoritative mothers may compensate for anuninvolved father, for example, whereas an authoritative father may not beable to compensate for an uninvolved mother.

Finally, we are interested in whether some husband-wife combinationsinvolving nonauthoritative parenting styles are as effective as having anauthoritative parent. The research on authoritative parenting is often inter-preted as indicating that the optimal family environment for children com-bines support and nurturance with structure and control (Amato & Fowler,2002; Simons, Simons, & Wallace, 2004). However, perhaps both dimen-sions of parenting need not be provided by the same person. Responsivenessmight be bestowed by one parent and structure and control by the other. If thisis the case, an indulgent-authoritarian combination may be as effective ashaving one authoritative parent.

We extend previous research by using multiple sources to assess parent-ing. Both child reports and observational ratings of family interaction areused in classifying father, mother, and family parenting styles. Although indi-vidual family members have an opportunity to observe one another in myr-iad contexts, they are often poor observers of their own and one another’sbehavior. Trained observers can assess family interaction with a high degreeof objectivity, but they have access to a restricted sample of the parents’ broadarray of interactions with their children. Thus, both approaches have theirstrengths and limitations. Given these considerations, we assume that the beststrategy is to perform our analyses using both sources of information and tosearch for commonality of results across reporters.

Method and Procedures

Sample

Data for the present study were collected as part of the second wave andthird wave of the Iowa Youth and Families Project. The Iowa Youth andFamilies Project is a panel study of 451 European American intact, two-parent families. In addition to the mother and father, each family consisted ofa target adolescent and a sibling within 4 years of age of the target child. The



sample was recruited through the cohort of all seventh grade students, maleand female, from eight counties in North Central Iowa who were enrolled inschool during the winter and spring of 1989. The study site was selectedbecause it is fairly representative of the state as a whole with regard to anumber of characteristics (e.g., income, size of communities). Seventy-sevenpercent of the eligible families agreed to participate in the study. Approxi-mately two thirds of the families resided in small towns with populations ofless than 6,500, whereas slightly less than one third of the families lived onfarms. Mean level of education for the parents was 13 years and averageincome was $39,116. Mean age was 39 years for fathers and 37 years formothers and couples had been married an average of 18 years. Fifty-two per-cent of the targets were female. At the time of data collection for Waves 2 and3, targets were approximately 13.5 and 14.5 years of age, respectively.Additional information regarding the sample is available in Conger, Elder,Lorenz, Simons, and Whitbeck (1992) and Conger and Elder (1994). The tar-get children were in eighth grade when the parenting data used in the presentstudy were collected, whereas the outcomes were assessed at both eighth andninth grades. Thus, our analyses examined the extent to which family parent-ing styles assessed in eighth grade predict changes in the outcomes in the sub-sequent year.

Procedures

Essentially, the same procedures and instruments were used in both wavesof data collection (see Conger et al., 1992). Each wave of data collectioninvolved two visits to each of the study families. During the first visit, eachof the four family members completed a set of questionnaires focusing onfamily processes, individual family member characteristics, and socioeco-nomic circumstances. During the second visit, which normally occurredwithin 2 weeks of the first, the family was videotaped while engaging in sev-eral different structured interaction tasks. The visit began by having eachindividual complete a short questionnaire designed to identify issues of con-cern or disagreements within the family (e.g., chores, recreation, money,etc.). The family members were then gathered around a table and given a setof cards to read and discuss. They were asked to discuss among themselveson each of the items listed on the cards and to continue talking until the inter-viewer returned. The family was given 25 minutes to complete the task. Theitems on the cards concerned family issues such as discipline, chores, and thechildren’s friends and school performance. The second task, 15 minutes inlength, also involved all family members. For this task, the family was asked




to discuss and try to resolve the issues and disagreements that they had citedin the questionnaires they had completed early in the visit. The third taskinvolved only the children in the family, and the fourth task included only theparents. The present article uses data from the first task only.

The family’s interaction around these tasks was videotaped. The videotapeswere coded by project observers using the Iowa Family Interaction RatingScales (Melby et al., 1990). These scales focus on the quality of behavioralexchanges between family members. The project observers were staff memberswho had received several weeks of training on rating family interactions andspecialized in coding one of various tasks. Before observing tasks, coders hadto independently rate precoded interaction tasks and achieve at least 90%agreement with that standard. For purposes of assessing interobserver reliabil-ity, 28% of the tasks at Wave 2 and 25% at Waves 3 and 4 were randomlyselected to be independently observed and rated by a second observer.Reliability between observers was determined by calculating a generalizabilitycoefficient. In the case of two independent observers, this coefficient is an intra-class correlation and provides an estimate of true score variance relative to errorvariance (Suen & Ary, 1989). The magnitude of this coefficient varied by rat-ing scale but on an average ranged between .60 and .70.

Measures

Warmth/Support

The child-report measure consisted of a four-item supportive parentingscale that focuses on the various components of supportive parenting(Simons, Lorenz, & Conger, 1992; Simons, Lorenz, & Wu, 1993). The ado-lescents were asked to think about times during the preceding month whenthey had spent time talking to or doing things with their mother. They werethen asked to indicate how often during these interactions that their motherhad done things like listened carefully to their point of view or showed loveand affection. Response format for this instrument consisted of 1 (never),2 (almost never), 3 (not too often), 4 (about half of the time), 5 (fairly often),6 (almost always), and 7 (always). Respondents then answered the same setof questions regarding their father. Coefficient alpha was .87 and .83 for theadolescents’ reports about their fathers and mothers, respectively.

An observational measure of supportive parenting was formed using thewarmth/support parenting scale from the discussion task of the videotapedfamily interaction. The warmth/support scale focused on the extent towhich the parent shows caring and concern for the child. The 5-point ratingscale consisted of 1 (not at all characteristic), 2 (mainly uncharacteristic),




3 (somewhat characteristic), 4 (moderately characteristic), and 5 (mainlycharacteristic).

Hostility

Adolescents used a four-item scale to report on the extent to which theirmother displayed hostility or anger toward the child (e.g., “How often doesyour mother shout or yell when she is mad at you?”). The 7-point responseformat for this instrument was the same as that used for the warmth/supportscale. Adolescents used the same four items to report on their fathers’ hos-tility. Coefficient alpha was .75 and .74 for their reports of fathers’ andmothers’ hostility, respectively.

Observational coders rated the hostility of parents toward their childrenbased on family interaction and content of discussion of the task in thevideotaped interaction. The coders used a 5-point scale to rate the degree towhich the parent displayed hostility, angry, critical, disapproving, and unin-volved behavior toward the child’s behavior, appearance, or state.

Consistent Discipline

Adolescents were asked to rate the consistency of their parents’ disci-pline using a four-item scale (e.g., “How often does your mother punishyou for something at one time and then at other times not punish you forthe same thing?” (Magruder, Lorenz, Hoyt, Ge, & Montague, 1992). Theresponse format ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (never), with a midpoint of3 (about half of the time). Coefficient alpha was .65 for reports aboutfathers and .68 for reports about mothers.

The observational ratings of inconsistent discipline were based on familyinteraction and content of discussion in the videotaped task. The coders useda 5-point scale to rate the consistency and persistence with which the parentmaintained and adhered to rules of conduct for the child’s behavior and dis-ciplined the child when the child violated these standards.

Monitoring

Adolescents reported on their monitoring using a four-item scale (e.g.,“How often does your mother know who you are with when you are awayfrom home?”). The response format ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always), witha midpoint of 3 (about half of the time). The adolescents reported on theirfathers using the same items. Coefficient alpha was .79 for reports aboutfathers and .82 for reports about mothers.




The observational rating of monitoring was based on the interaction andcontent of the discussion task. Using a 5-point scale, the coders assessed theparent’s knowledge and information, as well as the extent to which theparent pursued information concerning the child’s life and daily activities.

Parenting Style

The above parenting scales were used to develop measures of responsive-ness and demandingness as described by Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby andMartin (1983). For adolescent reports, the scores from the warmth and hos-tility scales were summed to form a composite measure of responsiveness.The hostility scale was reverse-coded prior to summing it with the warmthscale. Possible scores on the composite support measure ranged from a lowof 8 to a high of 56. Parents who received scores of 40 or more, based on ado-lescent reports, were categorized as high on the responsiveness dimension,whereas those with a total score of less than 40 received a categorization oflow responsiveness. To score 40 or more, a parent would have to average ascore of 5 on each of the eight items. A score of 4 indicates that they engagedin the behavior in question about half of the time. To be considered responsive,it seems reasonable that parents should engage in the behaviors indicatingwarmth toward the child fairly often, although exhibiting hostile behaviors nottoo often, the responses that correspond with a score of 5 for each item.

The responsiveness measure was constructed using both warmth and hostil-ity items because highly responsive parents, by definition, show warmth andsupport while eschewing hostility, whereas parents who are very low on respon-siveness not only lack warmth but also are hostile and uninvolved (Baumrind,1996; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Authoritarian parents, for example, aredescribed as harsh and coercive in their use of disciplinary practices (Zhou,Eisenberg, Wang, & Reiser, 2004), and items focusing on hostility are usuallya component of any measure of authoritarian parenting (Robinson, Mandleco,Olsen, & Hart, 1995). Similarly, extremely uninvolved parents often respond tointrusions by their child with hostility (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Thus, a mea-sure of responsiveness should distinguish between parents who are largelywarm and supportive and those that are largely hostile and uninvolved. By com-bining warmth and hostility scales, we created a responsiveness scale thatserved this function.

The demandingness dimension was formed by adding the parents’ totalscale scores, based on adolescent reports, for monitoring those of consistentdiscipline. The possible scores for the composite demandingness measureranged from 8 to 40. Parents who scored 32 or more were categorized in the




high demandingness group, whereas those with scores of less than 32 werecategorized in the low demandingness group. To score 32 or more, a parentwould have to average a score of 4 on each of the eight items. A score of 3indicates that they monitored or disciplined consistently about half of thetime, whereas a score of 4 indicates that they engaged in these behaviorsalmost always.

The dichotomized responsiveness and demandingness scales were usedto classify parents according to Maccoby and Martin’s typology of parent-ing styles. Parents who were high on both responsiveness and demand-ingness were classified as authoritative, whereas those low on these twodimensions of parenting were considered uninvolved. Parents who werelow on responsiveness but high on demandingness were defined as author-itarian. Finally, parents who were high on responsiveness but low ondemandingness were labeled indulgent.

A similar approach was used to classify parents using the observationaldata. The warmth and hostility (reverse coded) ratings were summed to form acomposite responsiveness scale. Scores ranged from 2 to 10. Parents were con-sidered high on responsiveness, if they had a score of 8 or more on the com-posite scale (i.e., they averaged 4 or more on the warmth and reverse codedhostility scales). Such a score indicated that warmth was moderately charac-teristic and hostility mainly uncharacteristic of their interactions with theirchild. The monitoring and consistent discipline ratings were used to constructa composite demandingness scale. Again, scores ranged from 2 to 10 andparents were classified as high on demandingness if they scored 8 or more.Such a score indicated that monitoring and consistent discipline were at leastmoderately evident in their interactions with their child. These dichotomizedscores on responsiveness and demandingness were then used to classifyparents as authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, or uninvolved.

Our approach to classification allowed for a more absolute assessment ofparenting styles than the relativistic method used in most previous studies.Usually, a scale is used to assess a dimension of parenting (e.g., responsive-ness) and parents are classified as either high or low on this parenting dimen-sion based on whether they score above or below the median—that is, parentsare classified relative to the scores of the rest of the sample. This approachcan result in the misclassification of parenting styles. Many parents would bemisclassified as low on responsiveness, for example, if most of the parents inthe sample were highly responsive. In contrast, our approach allowed us todistinguish between parents based on whether a particular dimension of par-enting was evident at least half the time in the case of child reports or wasmoderately characteristic in the case of the observer ratings.




Family Parenting Styles

Families were classified according to the various combinations possibleusing the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology. Their typology consists offour types of parenting (authoritative, uninvolved, authoritarian, and indul-gent). Combining the parenting styles of mothers and fathers created atypology of 16 family parenting styles. Families were first classified usingthe child-report data and then again using the observer ratings.

Delinquency

Two measures were used as indicators of delinquency. The first was adelinquency self-report instrument adapted from the National Youth Survey(Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989).Adolescents were asked to indicate how often during the preceding year (0 =never, 4 = 6 or more times) they had engaged in each of 23 delinquent activ-ities. The acts varied from relatively minor offenses, such as skipping school,to more serious offenses, such as attacking someone with a weapon, sellingdrugs, or stealing something worth more than $25.

The second instrument consisted of a 16-item self-report measure of sub-stance use developed by Elliott et al. (1985) as part of the National Survey ofDelinquency and Substance Use. Participants were asked to report how oftenthey had used each substance during the past 6 months; responses rangedfrom 0 = never to 4 = 3 or more times per week. The instrument covered thefull array of intoxicants commonly used by adolescents (e.g., beer, marijuana,amphetamines, and cocaine). The correlation between substance use and thedelinquency checklist was approximately .55 at both waves. The two instru-ments were standardized and summed to form a comprehensive measure ofdelinquent behavior at both waves.

Depression

This outcome was measured using 12 items from the depression symp-tomology subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)(Derogatis, 1983). Respondents used a 5-point response format (1 = not atall, 5 = extremely) to indicate how much they were bothered by various symp-toms during the past week. Symptoms of depressed mood included cryingeasily, blaming themselves for things, feeling lonely, feeling worthless, andfeeling hopeless about the future. Physical symptoms of depression includedfeeling low in energy or feeling everything is an effort. Coefficient alpha wasapproximately .80 at both waves of data collection.





School Commitment

Adolescents reported on their commitment to school using a 19-itemscale (Simons, Johnson, Conger, & Elder, 1998). The items asked aboutsuch things as interest in school, relationships with teachers, and comple-tion of homework. Items provided for five response alternatives rangingfrom strongly disagree to strongly agree. Coefficient alpha was above .90at both waves.

Results

Initially all analyses were performed separately by gender of child. Theresults provided no evidence of gender differences. Therefore, for the sake ofparsimony, our results are presented using the full sample. Table 1 shows thefrequency of the various parenting styles using both child and observerreports. The highly significant chi-squares indicate that there are statisticallysignificant differences in the frequency with which the parenting styles occur.Using child reports, nearly one half of both mothers and fathers exhibitbehaviors consistent with an indulgent style of parenting. The second mostcommon parenting style reported by children is uninvolved followed veryclosely by an authoritative style. Based on child reports, less than 2% ofchildren have an authoritarian mother or father. Difference in proportion testsindicated that there were no significant differences between children’s reportsof mothers and fathers on any of the parenting styles.

In contrast to the child reports, Table 2 shows that when observer ratingswere used mothers and fathers are most likely to exhibit behaviors that areconsistent with an authoritative style of parenting and least likely to be anindulgent. Difference in proportion tests indicated that mothers were morelikely than fathers to parent in an authoritative manner. There were no othersignificant differences between mothers’ and fathers’ style of parentingwhen the observer ratings were used.

Table 1 also shows z tests for the significance of the difference in pro-portion of mothers and fathers categorized into each of the four parentingstyles based on reporter. The table reveals that there is low agreementbetween reporters. Compared to classification derived from child reports,observer ratings result in a higher proportion of both mothers and fathersbeing classified as either authoritative or authoritarian and a higher propor-tion of fathers being classified as authoritarian. The difference is particu-larly pronounced for authoritarian parenting where observer ratings result



226

Tabl

e 1

A C

ompa

riso

n of

Chi

ld a

nd O

bser

ver

Rep

orts

of

Mot

her’

s an

d F

athe

r’s

Par

enti

ng S

tyle

s

Mot

hers

Fath

ers

Chi

ldO

bser

ver

z Te

stC

hild

Obs

erve

rz

Test

n%

n%

Dif

fere

nce

zn

%n

%D

iffe

renc

ez

Aut

hori

tativ

e89

21.0

177

41.7

–20.

7–6

.68*

9823

.114

534

.2–1

1.1

–3.5

8*A

utho

rita

rian

71.

782

19.3

–17.

6–8

.80*

81.

910

023

.6–2

1.7

–9.8

6*In

dulg

ent

206

48.6

6114

.434

.211

.40*

210

49.5

5513

.036

.512

.59*

Uni

nvol

ved

122

28.8

9021

.27.

62.

53*

108

25.5

108

25.5

0.0

0.0

Mis

sing

00.

014

3.3

22.

016

3.8

χ219

1.94

*76

.58*

193.

28*

40.1

8*

*p≤

.05




in one fifth of mothers and nearly one fourth of fathers receiving this clas-sification, whereas the proportion based on child reports is less than 2%. Onthe other hand, child reports result in nearly half of both mothers andfathers being categorized as indulgent, whereas the proportion based onobserver ratings is less than 15%. Children are significantly more likely torate both mothers and fathers high on behaviors consistent with an indul-gent style of parenting than are observers. Finally, mothers are more likelyto be classified as uninvolved when child reports are used. This differenceis not evident, however, for fathers.

Next, we focused on ways in which individual parenting styles coalesceto form family parenting styles. Combining the 4 possible parenting stylesfor mothers with the 4 possible parenting styles for fathers yields a typol-ogy of 16 family parenting styles. Table 2 shows the distribution of familyparenting styles by reporter. The significant chi-squares indicate that,regardless of reporter, there is a difference between the observed and

Table 2Distribution of Family Parenting Style by Reporter

Child Observer

n % n %

Mother authoritative/father authoritative 69 16.3 102 25.2Mother authoritative/father authoritarian 1 0.2 43 10.6Mother authoritative/father indulgent 17 4.0 16 3.8Mother authoritative/father uninvolved 2 0.5 8 1.9Mother authoritarian/father authoritative 1 0.2 22 5.4Mother authoritarian/father authoritarian 0 0.0 43 10.6Mother authoritarian/father indulgent 2 0.5 1 0.2Mother authoritarian/father uninvolved 4 0.9 12 2.9Mother indulgent/father authoritative 24 5.7 10 2.4Mother indulgent/father authoritarian 3 0.7 2 0.5Mother indulgent/father indulgent 148 34.9 27 6.6Mother indulgent/father uninvolved 31 7.3 19 4.7Mother uninvolved/father authoritative 4 1.0 4 1.0Mother uninvolved/father authoritarian 4 1.0 8 1.9Mother uninvolved/father indulgent 43 10.1 9 2.1Mother uninvolved/father uninvolved 71 16.7 65 15.9Missing 0 18Total 424 406χ2 830.06*** 478.97***

***p ≤ .001




expected frequencies. This suggests that the distribution of family types isnot evenly distributed across the different types.

Using child reports, the most common family parenting style involvestwo indulgent parents. More than one third of families fall into this cate-gory. The second most common family parenting styles consists of twouninvolved parents (17%), closely followed by two authoritative parents(16%). One tenth of the families consist of an uninvolved mother pairedwith an indulgent father. It is interesting to note that there are no familieswith two authoritarian parents.

Based on the observer ratings, one quarter of the families is constitutedby two authoritative parents. The second most common family parentingstyle is two uninvolved parents (16%). Two family parenting styles tie forthird: two authoritarian parents and an authoritative mother paired with anauthoritarian father. Each constitutes 10.6% of the families. The leastcommon family parenting styles are an authoritarian mother paired with anindulgent father or an indulgent mother paired with an authoritarian father.

Compared to child reports, observer ratings result in a much higher pro-portion of families being classified as having either two authoritative or twoauthoritarian parents. In contrast, child reports were much more likely thanobserver ratings to result in families being classified as having two indul-gent parents. Regardless of reporter, however, the most common familyparenting styles are those in which both parents display the same style ofparenting (i.e., Dornbush’s, 1987, pure parenting styles). This finding sug-gests that assortative mating and socialization effects are in operation ratherthan some sort of complementary process. Although the pure styles are themost common, it is evident that a substantial number of families would beomitted if only those displaying this family parenting style were included.The proportion omitted would be 22% and 42% for child reports andobserver ratings, respectively.

In addition to showing that the pure family parenting styles are mostprevalent, Table 2 indicates that, across reporters, certain family parentingstyles are much more widespread than others. For example, combinationsthat include an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father or anindulgent mother paired with an uninvolved father are relatively common,whereas an authoritarian mother paired with an authoritative father, anindulgent mother paired with an authoritarian father, and an uninvolvedmother paired with an authoritarian father almost never occur. These find-ings contradict Baumrind’s (1991) suggestion that a traditional parentingstyle comprised an indulgent mother and an authoritarian father might bequite prevalent.




Using observer ratings, an additional 33% of the sample families isincluded when the eight most common family parenting styles are used ratherthan only the four pure types. This brings the total proportion of familiesincluded to 91%. The seven most common family parenting styles based onchild reports account for 95% of sample families, 27% more than when onlythe four pure types are used. Thus, it is clear that including family parentingstyles other than the four pure types makes it possible to include a far greaterproportion of families, regardless of which reporter is used.

The last and the most important research question concerned the extentto which child outcomes vary by family parenting style. This issue wasaddressed using ANCOVA. Family parenting styles that did not have at least15 cases were omitted from this analysis. Using child reports, seven familyparenting styles met this criterion, and eight family parenting styles met thiscriterion when observer ratings were used. The ANCOVAs were performedusing a two-step process. First, each of the child outcomes (i.e., conduct prob-lems, depression, and school commitment) was regressed on family incomeand education, gender of child, and prior assessments of the outcome vari-able. Some studies have reported that both parental socioeconomic status(SES) and child’s gender are related to parenting behavior and child out-comes. Thus, removing the effects of these variables from our three outcomevariables ensured that any relationships found between family parenting styleand child development were not spurious due to confounds with family SESor child gender. Partialling out the effect of earlier scores on each of the childoutcomes provided residual scores that represented change over time.

The residuals from these regressions were then used as dependent vari-ables in one-way analyses of variance. Thus, the one-way ANOVAs exam-ined the extent to which changes in mean levels of the dependent variablevaried by type of family parenting style, net effect of family SES and child’sgender. F tests were used to determine whether there was an overall differ-ence in the means across the various parenting styles and least significant dif-ferences post hoc t tests were used to test for significant differences betweeneach of the parenting styles. Least significant difference was chosen becauseit is appropriate in an exploratory framework although still providing someminimal protection against Type I errors (Snedecor & Cochran, 1989).

Using child reports to classify parenting, Table 3 shows that mean level ofdelinquency, depression, and school commitment varies by family parentingstyle. Differences in family parenting style explain 5.7%, 11%, and 13.4% ofthe variance in the three outcomes, respectively. The rank order for themagnitude of the standardized means indicates that, for all three outcomes,




Table 3Results of Analysis of Covariance and Least Significant Differences

Post Hoc t Tests for the Association Between Family ParentingStyle and Child Outcomes by Child Report

Child Outcome Family Parenting Style n X–

t Test Results

Delinquency Mother indulgent/ 24 –1.76 I/Av > I/I, U/I,father authoritative (I/Av) U/U

Mother authoritative/ 69 –1.43 Av/Av > I/I, U/I,father authoritative (Av/Av) U/U

Mother authoritative/ 17 –1.35 Av > U/Ufather indulgent (Av/I)

Mother indulgent/ 31 0.16father uninvolved (I/U)

Mother indulgent/ 148 0.40father indulgent (I/I)

Mother uninvolved/ 43 0.61father indulgent (U/I)

Mother uninvolved/ 71 1.38father uninvolved (U/U)

Variance explained = 5.7%

Depression Mother authoritative/ 69 –2.77 Av/Av > I/Av, I/I,father authoritative (Av/Av) U/I

Mother authoritative/ 17 –2.00 Av/Av > U/Ufather indulgent (Av/I)

Mother indulgent/ 24 –1.91 Av/I > U/I, U/Ufather authoritative (I/Av)

Mother indulgent/ 148 –0.28 I/Av > I/U, U/I,father indulgent (I/I) U/U

Mother indulgent/ 31 1.12 I/I > U/I, U/Ufather uninvolved (I/U)

Mother uninvolved/ 43 2.19father indulgent (U/I)


Variance explained = 11%

School commitment Mother authoritative/ 69 6.45 Av/Av > I/Av, I/I,father authoritative (Av/Av) I/U, U/I, U/U

Mother authoritative/ 17 2.67 Av/I > U/I, U/Ufather indulgent (Av/I)




the family parenting styles which are associated with the best results forchildren are either two authoritative parents or an authoritative parent pairedwith an indulgent one. The worst child outcomes are associated with combi-nations of parenting styles that include an uninvolved mother paired witheither an indulgent or an uninvolved father.

The post hoc t tests show that having at least one authoritative parent pro-duces significantly lower levels of delinquency and depression and greaterschool commitment than styles that include some combination of indulgentand uninvolved parenting or two uninvolved parents. Authoritativeness byeither parent, a combination of authoritativeness and indulgence, or even twoindulgent parents are associated with significantly better outcomes than anuninvolved mother paired with an indulgent or an uninvolved father.

Table 4 shows that there are also significant differences in mean level ofdelinquency (p ≤ .01), depression (p ≤ .05 ), and school commitment (p ≤ .01)when observer reports are used to assess family parenting style. Family par-enting style explains 5.5%, 11%, and 9.5% of the three outcomes, respec-tively. Examining the rank order of means for the outcomes, an authoritativemother combined with an indulgent father is the best style for preventingdelinquency or depression, and two authoritative parents scores second best.By far, the least effective family parenting style is the combination of twouninvolved parents. The table indicates that two authoritative parents are bestfor promoting school commitment, whereas two indulgent parents scoresecond best. The least effective styles of parenting are an uninvolved motherpaired with an uninvolved father or two authoritarian parents.

The post hoc t tests show that having two uninvolved parents is associ-ated with higher rates of delinquency than either of the other three pure

Table 3 (continued)


t Test Results

Mother indulgent/ 24 0.99 I/Av > U/U father authoritative (I/Av)

Mother indulgent/ 148 –0.45 I/I > U/Ufather indulgent (I/I)

Mother indulgent/ 34 –1.72father uninvolved (I/U)

Mother uninvolved/ 43 –2.25father indulgent (U/I)

Mother uninvolved/ 71 –4.12father uninvolved (U/U)


**p ≥ .01.




Table 4Results of Analysis of Covariance and Least Significant Differences

Post Hoc t Tests for the Association Between Family ParentingStyle and Child Outcomes by Observer Report


t Test Results

Delinquency Mother authoritative/ 16 –0.95 Av/I > U/Ufather indulgent (Av/I)

Mother authoritative/ 107 –0.80 Av/Av > U/Ufather authoritative (Av/Av)

Mother authoritarian/ 45 –0.60 An/An > U/Ufather authoritarian (An/An)

Mother indulgent/ 28 –0.34 I/I > U/Ufather indulgent (I/I)

Mother authoritarian/ 23 –0.10father authoritative (An/Av)

Mother authoritative/ 45 0.22father authoritarian (Av/An)

Mother indulgent/ 20 1.40father uninvolved (I/U)



Depression Mother authoritative/ 16 –2.73 Av/I > U/Ufather indulgent (Av/I)

Mother authoritative/ 107 –0.55 Av/Av > U/Ufather authoritative (Av/Av)

Mother authoritarian/ 45 –0.24father authoritarian (An/An)


Mother authoritative/ 45 0.12father authoritarian (Av/An)

Mother indulgent/ 28 0.54father indulgent (I/I)

Mother authoritarian/ 23 0.59father authoritative (An/Av)


Variance explained = 11%

School commitment Mother authoritative/ 107 3.39 Av/Av > An/An,father authoritative (Av/Av) I/U, U/U

Mother indulgent/ 28 1.14 I/I > An/An, U/Ufather indulgent (I/I)




parenting styles or an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father.Furthermore, having two authoritative parents or an authoritative motherpaired with an indulgent father is associated with lower levels of depressionthan having two uninvolved parents. Finally, having at least one authorita-tive parent or two indulgent ones produces greater school commitment thanhaving either two authoritarian or two uninvolved parents.

In sum, regardless of reporter, having two authoritative parents tends tobe associated with better adolescent outcomes than other family parentingstyles and having at least one authoritative parent is better than other par-enting styles that do not include an authoritative parent. For parenting stylesthat include an authoritative mother paired with a father exhibiting otherthan an authoritative style, indulgence on the part of fathers is usually asso-ciated with better outcomes than either authoritarianism or uninvolvement.The worst outcomes are produced by having two uninvolved parents. Whenonly one of the parents is uninvolved, combinations that include an unin-volved mother produce significantly worse outcomes than those combina-tions that include an uninvolved father.

Discussion and Conclusions

Although past research is consistent in the finding that children benefitfrom being reared by an authoritative parent, much of this research has

Table 4 (continued)


t Test Results

Mother authoritative/ 45 1.11 Av/An > An/An,father authoritarian (Av/An) U/U

Mother authoritarian/ 23 0.39father authoritative (An/Av)

Mother authoritative/ 16 0.27father indulgent (Av/I)


Mother uninvolved/ 67 –3.44father uninvolved (U/U)

Mother authoritarian/ 45 –3.56father authoritarian (An/An)


**p ≥ .01.




focused only on mothers (Marsiglio et al., 2000). When studies have clas-sified the parental behavior of both parents, there has been little considera-tion of the ways in which the parenting styles of mothers and fathers coexistand the effect of these various combinations on child development. Giventhese limitations in past research, the present study was concerned with twoissues. First, we examined the frequency with which various family parent-ing styles tend to occur. Second, we investigated the extent to which differ-ences in family parenting style influence adolescent adjustment.

Both child reports and observational ratings of family interaction wereused to classify parenting styles. Each approach has its strengths and limita-tions. Although children have the opportunity to observe their parents’ behav-ior in a variety of situations and settings the routinized, taken for grantednature of family interaction compromises a child’s recall of parental actions.On the other hand, trained observers are able to rate family interaction with ahigh degree of objectivity but have access to a more narrow set of exchangesbetween parents and their children. Thus, the weakness of one approach tendsto be the strength of the other. Given these considerations, our strategy wasto perform our analyses using both sources of information and to search forcommonality of results across reporters.

The two sources provided very different estimates of the frequency of someparenting styles. This was particularly true for combinations involving twoindulgent parents or two authoritarian parents. The former style was greaterwhen child reports were used, whereas the latter was more frequent whenobserver ratings were used. In part, these differences are probably a functionof differences in the information available to the two types of reporters. Unlikethe observers, children are aware of the many times when they have circum-vented parental rules with impunity or charmed their way out of punishments.In other words, children probably have better information than observersregarding instances of indulgence. Indeed, parents most likely strive during theinteraction tasks to present themselves as conscientious or even strict. Also,the task is apt to create anxiety in the participants, leading parents to come offas lacking in warmth. These tendencies would increase the chances of parentsbeing perceived as authoritarian.

In addition, reporter differences in the frequency of family parentingstyles may be a function of the fact that children and observers used dis-similar response formats in rating parental behavior. Thus, the cut-pointsfor classifying parents as responsive or controlling required that the behav-ior be present at least half the time for child reports and that the behaviorbe moderately characteristic in the case of observer ratings. This disparityin the definition of the cut-points for classification undoubtedly accounts




for some of the differences between reporters in family parenting styles.Even with such methodological limitations, however, there were still sev-eral findings that were evident across reporters.

Using the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology, there are 16 possiblecombinations of mother and father parenting styles. Each of these combi-nations was considered to be a family parenting style. We expected somefamily parenting styles to be more prevalent than others. First, as a conse-quence of assortative mating and mutual influence, we posited that threecombinations would be overrepresented among the various types of familyparenting styles: an authoritative mother and father, an indulgent motherand father, and an uninvolved/uninvolved mother and father. This expecta-tion was largely supported as two authoritative parents, two uninvolvedparents, and two indulgent parents were the most frequent combinationsusing child reports, and two authoritative parents or two uninvolved parentswere the most frequent combinations using observer reports. Contrary toprediction, however, the combination of two indulgent parents was rela-tively infrequent when observer ratings were used to classify parentingstyles. Earlier, we provided a possible reason for this finding.

Although we assumed that in general assortative mating and mutual influ-ence would cause couples to manifest similar parenting styles, authoritarianparenting was seen as an exception to this tendency. We expected the combi-nation of two authoritarian parents to be underrepresented among family par-enting styles. This prediction was based on the assumption that it would bedifficult for two authoritarian parents to coexist in a family because bothwould want to be in control of family decision making. Therefore, if oneparent is authoritarian, we anticipated that the other would be either authorita-tive, indulgent, or uninvolved. The results supported our predictions. Nofamilies were classified as having the combination of two authoritarian parentswhen child reports were used, and less than 11% showed this combinationwhen observer ratings to classify parents. Regardless of reporter, the majorityof authoritarian parents were married to someone who displayed a nonauthor-itarian (authoritative, indulgent, and uninvolved) approach to parenting.

Finally, Baumrind (1991) has suggested that it may be common in manyfamilies for the mother to be more nurturing than controlling, whereas thefather is more controlling than nurturing. She refers to husbands and wives insuch families as traditional parents as they are enacting traditional genderroles. Baumrind’s arguments suggest that there should be an overrepresenta-tion of family parenting styles consisting of an indulgent mother combinedwith an authoritarian father. We found no support for this idea. Regardless ofreporter, virtually no families showed this combination of parenting styles.




Having examined the prevalence of the various family parenting styles, thesecond portion of our analysis was concerned with the effect of differentfamily parenting styles on adolescent adjustment. We considered three out-comes: externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and school commit-ment. First, we are interested in whether adolescents achieve better outcomeswhen they have two rather than simply one authoritative parent. In general,this was the case. This family parenting style was associated with the lowestlevels of depression and the highest levels of school commitment, regardlessof reporter. This pattern of results for adolescents with two authoritativeparents supports the idea that the positive effects of authoritative parentingare amplified when both parents engage in this style of parenting. Contrary tothese findings, however, the lowest levels of delinquency were associatedwith an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father when childreports were used and with an authoritative father paired with an indulgentmother when observer ratings were used. This finding is puzzling as it sug-gests that there may be something about the combination of an authoritativeand indulgent parent that is effective in deterring delinquency. To the extentthat delinquency is an expression of rebellion toward parental attempts atcontrolling adolescent behavior, it may be the case that the presence of ahighly warm and loving parent removes the impetus for engaging in suchexternalizing behaviors.

Second, we were concerned with the extent to which an authoritativeparent can compensate for the less competent parenting of a mate. Weexpected that the answer to this question varies by the type of style displayedby the second parent. Although a single authoritative parent may be sufficientwhen the second parent is an indulgent, we doubted that this would be thecase when the second parent is an uninvolved. Furthermore, we assumed thatthe answers to these questions depend on the sex of the parent. Although anauthoritative mother may compensate for an uninvolved father, for example,an authoritative father may not be able to compensate for an uninvolvedmother. The findings were largely as expected, and a similar pattern wasfound across child reports and observer ratings. The fact that we found thisconsistency or reliability of results when using multiple reporters strengthensthe validity of the findings.

Our results indicated that having at least one authoritative parent fostersbetter outcomes than family parenting styles that do not include an authoritativeparent. For family parenting styles that included an authoritative motherpaired with a father exhibiting other than an authoritative style, indulgenceon the part of fathers was usually associated with better outcomes than




either authoritarianism or uninvolvement. When only one of the parentswas uninvolved, combinations that included an uninvolved mother wereassociated with significantly worse outcomes than those styles thatincluded an uninvolved father. These results suggest a compensation effectwhere the benefits of an authoritative parenting style buffer the deleteriouseffects of a less effective style of parenting except when paired with anuninvolved mother. In that case, the benefits of having an authoritativefather do not outweigh the negative consequences associated with an unin-volved mother. The worst outcomes, however, were produced by havingtwo uninvolved parents.

Finally, we are interested in whether some husband–wife combinationsinvolving nonauthoritative parenting styles are as effective as having an author-itative parent. The research on authoritative parenting is often interpreted asindicating that the optimal family environment for children combines supportand nurturance with structure and control (Baumrind, 1991; Simons et al.,2004). However, perhaps both dimensions of parenting do not need to beprovided by the same person. Responsiveness might be bestowed by oneparent and structure and control by the other. If this is the case, an indulgent-authoritarian combination may be as effective as having one authoritative parent.Unfortunately, only five families were classified as having this combinationusing child reports and three families using observer ratings. Thus, the preva-lence of these families was too low to include them in the ANCOVA. Althoughwe were unable to evaluate the efficacy of this parenting style compared to thoseinvolving an authoritative parent, we can conclude that it is very rare and hencenot a common substitute for the presence of an authoritative parent.

Although the present study overcame some of the limitations of pastresearch, it also suffered from certain other limitations. First, given the sam-ple size, some of the cells in our analyses of covariance were rather small.There is a need to replicate this research with a larger sample. Second, thesample was very homogeneous. All of the families in the sample are Whiteand most are working class. Future research needs to examine the extent towhich the distribution of family parenting styles and their association withadolescent outcomes varies by race and type of neighborhood.

Steinberg points out that it would be difficult to find any group withinwhich authoritativeness has deleterious consequences for the adolescent, orany group in which neglectful or uninvolved parenting is desirable. Indeed,Bradford et al. (2003) using a multinational sample report complete invarianceacross cultures in the linkages between parenting and adolescent functioning.It may be, however, that authoritarian parenting is more common and has more




beneficial effects for some ethnic groups or those in particularly disadvantagedneighborhoods. Consistent with this idea, Dornbush et al. (1987) andSteinberg et al. (1992) have reported that although authoritarian parenting isassociated with low school achievement for U.S. children, such parentingpractices are related to high levels of achievement for Chinese students. Chao(1994) notes that Chinese children perceive high parental control as an indi-cation of parental involvement and concern. Similarly, Brody, Stoneman,Smith, and Gibson (1999) found that no-nonsense parenting (warmth and sup-port paired with very high levels of control) is associated with positive out-comes for African American youth. Smetana, Crean, and Daddis (2002) alsofind that greater adolescent-rated parental control was associated with lowerlevels of adolescent problem behavior for African Americans.

A third limitation of this study is that it only examined the consequencesof various parenting styles for adolescents. It is not clear whether the samefindings would be obtained for younger children. It is possible that theparents in the present study were more indulgent because this is a more age-appropriate way of parenting adolescents than young children. These sameparents may have been more authoritarian when their children were youngerbut made a shift toward permissiveness as more freedom was demanded bytheir adolescents. There is a need for future studies that focus on family par-enting styles and child outcomes in samples with younger children and forlongitudinal studies that document the ways in which parenting within afamily changes over time.

Although this study provides some insight with regard to interparentalinconsistency, we were not able to address intraparental inconsistency. Admit-tedly, parents may engage in different parenting styles depending on the issueat hand. For example, a father may be particularly strict and authoritarian withhis daughter when it comes to dating or her curfew but authoritative or evenindulgent when it comes to issues such as spending money or doing chores.The potential for such inconsistencies can have important implications regard-ing measures used to assess parenting and the types of comparisons that canbe made across methods.

In summary, our findings reinforce reports from many previous studiesindicating that authoritative parenting is the optimal manner in which to parentadolescents. A home consisting of two authoritative parents provides the mostbeneficial setting with regard to developmental outcomes. Having two loving,consistent parents is associated with the highest level of school commit-ment and the lowest levels of depression and delinquency. The poorest childoutcomes were associated with uninvolved parenting, particularly on the part




of mothers. There were mixed results for children of authoritarian or indulgentparents. However, the negative results associated with authoritarian, indulgent,or uninvolved parenting appear to be buffered by the positive effects of author-itative parenting, especially when the authoritative parent was the mother. Thisis an important finding because past research has often overlooked the onequarter to one third of families that exhibit interparentally inconsistent stylesof parenting. Also, this information is useful to practitioners, researchers, andparents who want to know if parenting practices continue to influence devel-opmental outcomes after childhood. The results presented here add to theexisting research evidence (e.g., Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Conger & Conger,2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000; Simons, Chao, Conger, & Elder,2001) that parenting still contributes in a meaningful way to developmentaloutcomes well into adolescence.

References

Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity.Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703-716.

Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adoles-cence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 289-308.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental PsychologyMonographs, 4(1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. InA. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn,R. Lerner, & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp.746-758). NewYork: Garland.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households.

New York: Plenum.Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., et al.

(2003). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescent func-tioning. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-137.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Smith, T., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Sibling relationships in ruralAfrican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 61, 1046-1057.

Bulanda, R. E. (2004). Paternal involvement with children: The influence of gender ideolo-gies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 40-45.

Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-environment (PE) correlation: The role ofspouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361-377.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: UnderstandingChinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development. 65, 1111-1119.

Coltrane, S. (2000). Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family labor.Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208-1233.



Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findingsfrom the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family,64, 361-373.

Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2000). Competence in early adultromantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.

Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change inrural America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A familyprocess model of economic hardship and influences on adjustment of early adolescentboys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.

Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual II (2nded.). Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

Dornbush, S., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of par-enting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, sub-stance use, and mental health problems. New York: Springer.

Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a functionof perceived interparental inconsistency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 599-610.

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multi-dimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574-587.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of com-petence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent,and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-childinteraction. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Magruder, B., Lorenz, F., Hoyt, D., Ge, X. J., & Montague, R. (1992). Dimensions of parent-ing: A technical report. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Institute for Social and BehavioralResearch.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1173-1193.

Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., et al. (1990). The Iowafamily interaction coding manual. Ames, IA: Iowa Youth and Families Project.

Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, O. B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authori-

tarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. PsychologicalReports, 77, 819-830.

Sabattini, L., & Leaper, C. (2004). The relation between mother’s and father’s parenting stylesand their division of labor in the home: Young adults’ retrospective reports. Sex Roles, 50,217-225.

Simons, R. L., Chao, W., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (2001). Quality of parenting as amediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices and delin-quency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 63-79.

Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). A test of latent trait ver-sus life-course perspectives on the stability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology36(2), 217-244.




Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (1992). Support from spouse as mediator andmoderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development,63, 1282-1301.

Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., & Wu, C. I. (1993). Social network and marital support as medi-ators of the impact of stress and depression on parental behavior. DevelopmentalPsychology, 28, 368-381.

Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., & Wallace, L. E. (2004). Families, delinquency, and crime:Linking society’s most basic institution to antisocial behavior. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Smetana, J. G, Crean, H. F., & Daddis, C. (2002). Family processes and problem behaviors inmiddle-class African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 275-304.

Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989) Statistical methods. (8th ed.). Ames: Iowa StateUniversity Press.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial matu-rity, and academic success in adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting prac-tices on adolescent commitment: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encour-agement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1994). Over-time changes in adjust-ment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, andneglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Authoritative parenting andadolescent adjustment across various ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence,1, 19-36.

Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese children’s effortful controland dispositional anger/frustration: Relations to parenting styles and children’s socialfunctioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 352-366.




Link mother father

Documents

Transcript of Link mother father