M (SD)
Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001. between younger and older children.
When looking at the connections between the SDQ dimensions and the parenting styles that were found (as shown in Table 2 ), there were low to moderate intercorrelations, which means there was no issue with multicollinearity.
Intercorrelations of the SDQ-Dimensions and Parenting Styles.
Correlations | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internalizing Problems (SDQ) | Externalizing Problems (SDQ) | Prosocial Behavior (SDQ) | Authoritarian Parenting Style | Permissive Parenting Style | Authoritative Parenting Style | |
Internalizing problems (SDQ) | - | |||||
Externalizing problems (SDQ) | 0.41 *** | - | ||||
Prosocial behavior (SDQ) | −0.24 *** | −0.35 *** | - | |||
Authoritarian parenting style | 0.22 *** | 0.31 *** | −0.16 *** | - | ||
Permissive parenting style | 0.18 *** | 0.31 *** | −0.15 *** | 0.28 *** | - | |
Authoritative parenting style | −0.16 *** | −0.30 *** | 0.35 *** | −0.38 *** | −0.19 *** | - |
Note. *** = p < 0.001.
To test for construct validity and to verify the factor structure we performed a confirmatory factor analysis. CFA allows testing of the assumption that a hypothesized relationship between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exists. The RMSEA, TLI, and CFI are deemed particularly important for accurately estimating CFAs [ 119 ]. Following Marsh et al. [ 120 ], we established the benchmark for a satisfactory model fit as RMSEA values below 0.08, coupled with CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and SRMR values below 0.08, indicating a strong fit for the model. The fit indices obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis applied were sufficient for the three parenting style scales, as evidenced by the following: (χ 2 (149) = 453.384, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.041 [90% CI = 0.037–0.046]; SRMR = 0.028 CFI = 0.923; TLI = 0.912), as for the five SDQ-parents sub-scales (χ 2 (231) = 587.411, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.036 [90% CI = 0.032–0.039]; SRMR = 0.042 CFI = 0.926; TLI = 0.903). This confirms the construct validity for each scale of the study.
We utilized three indicators, namely authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting style, to group parents into distinct parenting style classes through the statistical application of Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). This allowed us to examine patterns of latent parenting styles, which encompassed multiple indicators and their interrelationships within the parenting style classes. By employing LPA as a comprehensive method, our objective was to assess the continuity of parenting style levels. The primary goal of this study was to use LPA to examine the proposed conceptualization of parenting styles, considering three aspects of parenting within an overarching latent structure, and to empirically classify latent variables into subgroups based on similar observations.
The models used in this study were non-nested. To determine the best model, different criteria were applied [ 121 ], including the entropy value, as well as information criteria such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Sample-Adjusted BIC (ABIC). The smaller values indicate a better fit [ 122 ]. Entropy was also considered, with values above 0.7 deemed sufficient to indicate certainty in the estimation, but with models of entropy of 1.0 being overidentified [ 123 , 124 ]. The final latent profile analysis (LPA) model was chosen based on various statistical indicators and theoretical considerations. Additionally, model fit criteria such as the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ration test (LMR-LRT), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio test (aLMR-LRT), and the Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio test (BLRT) were used for the LPA. A significant p -value indicated an improvement to the previous model with k − 1 profiles. The ultimate model for an LPA, which determines the number of profiles, is selected based on a combination of statistical measures and pre-existing theoretical frameworks and the rule of the most parsimonious solution [ 125 ], which means that the interpretability and the additional information provided by a more complex solution has to be established. There are currently no established guidelines for determining the appropriate size of profiles [ 121 ]. Following Nylund [ 124 ], we are arguing against having profile sizes with less than 50 cases or these profiles being less than 5% of the total sample.
The analysis was conducted for a range of two to six latent patterns. Statistical tests of model fit can be found in Table 3 . A model consisting of four profiles was selected, as it had a lower aBIC score than a profile 3 solution, and the entropy was higher. For the comparison between the profile 3 the profile 4 solutions, we additionally applied model fit criteria with significant p -values for profile 3 over the profile two solutions, indicating an improvement to the previous model, but non-significant p -values on LMR-LRT and aLMR-LRT when comparing profile 3 and profile 4 but with still significant p -values on the BLRT, indicating an improvement for the profile 4 to the profile three models. When comparing the profile 4 to the 5 or 6 profile solution, we noticed several criteria decreasing. In comparison to the profile 4 solutions, we detected for profile 5 (aBIC Delta to profile 4 = 777) and 6 (aBIC Delta to profile 5 = 948) solutions a significant drop in aBIC differences, and for both solutions an Entropy of 1.0, which suggested weak evidence [ 126 ] and an overidentification of the model [ 127 ], leading us favoring the profile 4 solution.
Model Fit Indices for Latent Profile Analysis on Parenting Styles, N = 1203.
AIC | BIC | ABIC | Entropy | LMR LR Test -Values | ALMR LR Test -Value | Sample Proportion Per Profile ( ; %) | Classification Accuracy | Blt -Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2-Profiles | 3012 | 3063 | 3032 | 0.933 | >0.05 | >0.05 | (138; 11.4%) (1065; 88.5%) | >0.921 | <0.001 |
3-Profiles | 2494 | 2566 | 2521 | 0.979 | <0.001 | <0.001 | (949; 83.0) (151; 12.5) (53; 4.4) | >0.993 | <0.001 |
4-Profiles | 2174 | 2265 | 2208 | 0.995 | >0.05 | >0.05 | (803; 66.7) (197; 16.3) (53; 4.4) (150; 12.4) | >0.996 | <0.01 |
5-Profiles | 1397 | 1509 | 1439 | 1.00 | >0.05 | >0.05 | (197; 16.3) (103; 8.5) (71; 5.9) (803; 66.7) (18; 2.3) | 1.00 | <0.001 |
6-Profiles | 449 | 581 | 498 | 1.00 | >0.05 | >0.05 | (49; 3.9) (197; 16.3) (103; 8.5) (803; 66.7) (44; 3.6) (9; 0.7) | 1.00 | <0.001 |
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; ABIC = Sample-size adjusted BIC; LMR LR = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; ALMR LR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test; BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood ratio test.
For the 5 (one profile with n = 18 participants, 2.3% of the sample) and 6 profile (one profile with n = 49, 3.9% of the sample; one profile with n = 44, 3.6% of the sample; one profile with n = 9, 0.7% of the sample), solutions had far too small sample sizes [ 124 , 128 ]. Additionally, for both the 5 and 6 profile solutions, the new profiles did not offer new theoretical insights. but merely split already existing small profiles. Based on the abovementioned criteria and the principle of favoring more restricted and simple models, the profile 4 solutions were ultimately chosen. Along with empirical measures, the selection of the profile 4 solutions was also influenced by its interpretability and alignment with existing theoretical frameworks.
By the three introduced parenting styles and the consecutive tests on a different number of profiles (two to six profiles), we identified the four-profile solution as the best fitting. Regarding the distribution of the four profiles (see Figure 1 ), we identified a profile (profile 1, 66.6% of the participants) called Highly Authoritative style (HA) with high levels of authoritative, the lowest levels of authoritarian and middle levels of permissive parenting styles. We additionally identified a profile called Relaxed Authoritative style (RA) (profile 2, 16.3% of the participants) with still high but lower levels of authoritative style than in profile 1, low but elevated levels of authoritarian style, and middle levels of permissive style. Profile 4 (12.4% of the participants), named Permissive Focused Authoritative style (PFA), had a mix of the second highest levels of authoritative and middle levels of permissive and slightly higher levels of authoritarian parenting styles. Finally, in profile 3 (4.4% of the participants), named Inconsistent Parenting style (IP), we identified parents with a blend of higher levels of authoritative and middle levels of permissive and authoritarian parenting levels. From the solution chosen, we could detect that parenting styles are a complex mix and multidimensional latent construct encompassing authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles, rather than a distinct single parenting style as commonly assumed.
Diagrammatic Representation of the four identified parenting style profiles by LPA.
We analyzed if there were differences in the patterns concerning parental education and parents’ age to control for any effects caused by these two covariates by using multinomial-regression analysis. Neither for education (Wald chi2(12) = 9.830, p = 0.631) nor for age (Wald chi2(6) = 6.091, p = 0.413) have significant effects been identified.
For the three SDQ dimensions (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and prosocial behavior), we identified significantly lower levels of problems when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to the other three parenting profiles (see Table 4 ). This was especially the case when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to the “permissive focused authoritative style” or the “inconsistent parenting style” profile. No significant differences were identified (see Table 4 ) when comparing the levels of prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles. In summary, we identified the “highly authoritative parenting style” profile to be the least connected to internalizing or externalizing problems of the respective children when studying the answers by their parents.
Multinomial logistic regression of SDQ-dimensions in the four LPA profiles.
LCA Wave 2 Profile | Predictor | B | SE | Wald Statistic | OR | Prediction in % Pseudo-R | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cox & Snell | Nagelkerke | Mac-Fadden | |||||||
Permissive focused authoritative style | Intercept | −0.88 | 0.18 | 23.73 | <0.001 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 1.6 | |
SDQ-Internalizing | −0.99 | 0.21 | 22.62 | <0.001 | 0.37 | ||||
Inconsistent Parenting style | Intercept | −1.60 | 0.24 | 44.72 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Internalizing | −1.48 | 0.30 | 24.49 | <0.001 | 0.23 | ||||
Relaxed Authoritative style | Intercept | −1.03 | 0.19 | 29.15 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Internalizing | −0.44 | 0.21 | 4.39 | <0.01 | 0.64 | ||||
Permissive focused authoritative style | Intercept | −0.74 | 0.18 | 17.15 | <0.001 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 3.3 | |
SDQ-Externalizing | −1.19 | 0.21 | 33.16 | <0.001 | 0.31 | ||||
Inconsistent Parenting style | Intercept | −1.18 | 0.21 | 32.19 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Externalizing | −2.24 | 0.30 | 56.68 | <0.001 | 0.11 | ||||
Relaxed Authoritative style | Intercept | −0.87 | 0.19 | 21.95 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Externalizing | −0.64 | 0.21 | 9.56 | <0.01 | 0.53 | ||||
Permissive focused authoritative style | Intercept | −1.13 | 0.18 | 39.62 | <0.001 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.6 | |
SDQ-Prosocial behavior | −0.69 | 0.21 | 11.23 | <0.001 | 0.50 | ||||
Inconsistent Parenting style | Intercept | −2.28 | 0.29 | 61.26 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Prosocial behavior | −0.55 | 0.33 | 2.70 | >0.05 | 0.58 | ||||
Relaxed Authoritative style | Intercept | −1.11 | 0.18 | 38.64 | <0.001 | ||||
SDQ-Prosocial behavior | −0.37 | 0.20 | 3.39 | >0.05 | 0.69 |
Note: S.E. = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio. Reference LPA profile is the profile we called “Highly Authoritative style”. For all three SDQ-dimensions: (0 normal; 1 at risk/clinical).
Given the lack of studies that capture parenting styles as a heterogeneous construct and therefore solely focus on the individual and the well-known parenting styles, i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, we pursued the research question as to whether there are distinct parenting style profiles. We conceptualized parenting style as a multidimensional and latent construct encompassing diverse aspects of parenting rather than a single one. We, therefore, defined parenting style as a collection, a mix of parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and emotions [ 9 ].
By using latent profile analysis and examining the association between the identified profiles and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior, our study is able to confirm the relevance of presenting the different parenting dimensions in a more complex and appropriate picture of parenting profiles and their influence on adolescents’ socio-emotional skills. Person-centered approaches extend beyond commonly used methods for establishing these parenting styles or profiles, such as the scale-mean or median-split methods, which can be problematic when dealing with multiple dimensions [ 129 ].
The present study adopted a person-oriented method to overcome these limitations and address the complex interplay of multiple dimensions. This approach allowed, following Hypotheses 1, identification of distinct parental profiles using latent profile analysis, for an adequate representation of the combinations of parenting styles. Interestingly, previous studies using person-centered approaches have revealed different combinations of parenting styles but have not confirmed distinct forms of permissive parenting profiles [ 88 , 110 ] or authoritarian profiles [ 130 , 131 ]. Our results supported these findings by considering parenting styles as a multidimensional construct rather than mere forms of distinct parenting styles. These findings build on previous research and demonstrate how person-oriented methods can provide insights that are difficult to achieve with variable-oriented techniques. Detecting the latent profiles used in this study to identify parenting styles would be challenging, if not impossible, to confirm using traditional variable-oriented analyses.
Confirming Hypothesis 1, we found four distinct profiles regarding a mix of all three parenting styles. We could not identify a parenting style that was uniquely focused on authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive styles, demonstrating that parenting styles should be captured as a multidimensional, latent concept. Interestingly, all four patterns were very high in the authoritative style, suggesting that some form of responsiveness and control characterizes all profiles. This finding is in line with other studies [ 87 ], which also found several parenting profiles consisted of authoritative (i.e., adaptive) parenting practices. Additionally, in our research, most parents had middle levels of authoritarian style (i.e., negative features). Specifically, three out of four profiles showed some authoritarian parenting style combined with authoritative and permissive styles. This means that a third of the children and adolescents do experience intrusive, critical, scolding, and threatening behaviors common to authoritarian parents [ 17 , 22 , 23 ], in addition to some levels of warm, loving, and dialogical behaviors [ 17 , 21 ], as well as loose or contradictory discipline [ 18 ].
Notably, analyses of the latent profile frequencies indicated that most parents in our sample perceived their practices as exhibiting a relatively positive parenting style/profile. Given that the concept of equifinality (i.e., different early experiences in life) is helpful for interpreting how parenting styles are associated with adaptive or maladaptive behavioral outcomes over time [ 87 ], the results of the current study extend the research on multiple manifestations of adaptive parenting by Greek parents of children and adolescents. We found it surprising that the permissive style was present to a moderate degree in all four profiles. This means that, although permissiveness alone is negative for socio-emotional development in children and adolescents, our results demonstrate that it was not determinant for profile affiliation in combination with high authoritative and low authoritarian styles.
Confirming Hypothesis 2, the present study demonstrated that the socio-emotional development in childhood and adolescence is strongly linked to the parenting style experienced. Children and adolescents with parents with primarily authoritative parenting styles, characterized by high levels of behavioral control and support and lower levels of psychological control, show a positive developmental status. In contrast, adolescents with affective controlling parents manifest problems in externalizing and internalizing behavior. This aligns with the existing empirical evidence, which consistently shows that the authoritative parenting style is positive for adaptive socio-emotional development, while the others are not [ 132 , 133 , 134 ]. These findings propose that children and adolescents have fewer behavioral problems [ 36 ] and a reduced tendency to internalize problems and dangerous behaviors [ 80 , 81 ].
Although the majority of parenting programs aimed at parents have focused on improving communication with their children, there are limited studies addressing parenting strategies [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Thus, we assume that parents may need more support in coping with their children’s behavioral problems and improving their parenting abilities to decrease the problem behavior. By identifying different patterns of parenting styles, it becomes clear that not all parents have the same needs. Interventions can be tailored to parents’ individual needs and challenges based on their specific profile patterns. This is important because, if parents can learn to create a positive and supportive environment for their children, they can reduce the risk of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems, especially as parent–child conflict starts early in a child’s life and is very stable over time [ 31 ]. Thus, we adopt Teuber’s et al. [ 8 ] suggestion that the person-oriented results pointed out that it is useful to reinforce parents with guidance on positive parenting skills through parenting programs that focus on adaptive parenting practices, and direct the several maladaptive effects of different forms of dysfunctional practices. Contrary to our expectations regarding prosocial behavior, no significant differences were identified when comparing the levels of prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles, supposing that our findings are inconsistent with prior findings that indicated that parenting dimensions are related to adolescents’ prosocial behavior [ 70 , 71 ]. Considering that we used SDQ parent reports regarding their children’s prosocial behavior, our study examined prosocial behavior as a global construct, ignoring differentiation between the subtypes of this behavior (e.g., altruistic, compliant, emotional, and public) [ 57 ], as well as between the motivations underlying it.
While our research on Hypotheses 3 challenges the assumption that parents’ age and education are strong determinants of parenting patterns [ 108 , 109 , 110 ], it is essential to note that the existing literature suggests some weak associations. Therefore, it is crucial to interpret our findings with caution. Nonetheless, our study underscores the need for further investigation into the multifaceted factors that influence parenting behaviors and the potential role of intervention programs, such as the newly developed profiles, in shaping these behaviors.
The implications of our findings on Hypothesis 3 are twofold. Firstly, it is suggested that other factors not considered in our research may have a more substantial impact on parenting patterns. It is possible that aspects such as cultural influences, personal values, or individual experiences may play a more significant role in shaping how parents interact with their children. Secondly, the reduced effects of parents’ age and education observed in our study could be attributed to the effectiveness of the newly developed profiles. These profiles might have facilitated a greater homogenization of parenting practices, potentially minimizing the impact of individual characteristics, such as age and education.
Even if the insights gained by the chosen analytic design clearly expand the previous knowledge on parenting styles, there are a few limitations. As patterns of parental styles are not traits but states, we needed, instead of the chosen cross-sectional approach, a full longitudinal design. In future research, a latent transition analysis (LTA) should be applied to indicate significant differences in the longitudinal classification of the identified parenting patterns. LTA, the longitudinal extension of LCA, is a statistical tool that models possible parenting style pattern transitions over time. Especially. the findings regarding the “highly authoritative parenting style” as the least connected to children’s internalizing or externalizing problems should be approached with caution. There may be other confounding factors not considered in the analysis that could influence these associations, such as autonomy support and controlling parenting [ 135 , 136 ] or child–parent communication [ 137 ]. We also used parents’ self-perceptions of their parenting styles. Including the children’s perceptions of the respective parenting styles would have been interesting. Given that relations with parents play a distinct role in children’s development, the respective qualities of the relationship between parents and children are significant predictors of children’s academic, personal, and social development [ 138 ].
In addition, as our sample only included participants from a specific cultural context (Greek parents), the generalization of the findings to other countries and cultural contexts is rather limited. Furthermore, the sample restrictions and our specific sampling approach via the Internet can be considered another study limitation, even if our sample was large enough to be considered stable against minor deviations. Nevertheless, Mann and Stewart [ 139 ] noticed the risk of losing sight of who responds to online questionnaires. For example, about 90% of mothers answered our questionnaire. Although these surveys do not represent the total population of internet users, non-probability samples can be valuable, as they may be representative of a subgroup of the total population [ 113 ]. Another limitation is that marital status did not indicate if the parents were single mothers or fathers. In a future study, we could ask for this additional information, because it may matter to the chosen parenting styles [ 5 ]. We also did not ask for family income or migration status, both conditions that can also affect parenting styles [ 91 , 140 ].
To sum up, our results succeeded in extending parental types beyond the traditional authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative styles. The current study brings to light the person-centered approach in which parenting styles are better expanded into four parenting profiles, with the authoritative style predominating. Given the importance of the finding that one-third of children and adolescents exhibit behavior problems, the socio-emotional development in childhood and adolescence reaffirms the necessity of parenting programs to guide parenting practices.
This research was supported by The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through the SNF-Project 100019_185481 “Understanding the resilience pathways of adolescent students with experience of physical family violence: The interplay of individual, family and school class risk and protective factors”, awarded to WK (University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland).
Conceptualization, A.V. and W.K.; methodology, A.V., W.K. and A.K.; formal analysis, W.K.; data collection, A.K.; original draft preparation, A.V. and W.K.; writing—review and editing, A.V., W.K., A.K., D.A., C.A.F. and S.T.; funding acquisition, W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and did not have to be approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hellenic Open University because of the sample (participants’ age) and the topic.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Conflicts of interest.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Home > SCRIPPS > SCRIPPS_STUDENT > SCRIPPS_THESES > 155
Parenting styles and self-esteem.
Lucy C. Driscoll , Scripps College Follow
Spring 2013
Open Access Senior Thesis
Bachelor of Arts
Jennifer Ma
Judith LeMaster
Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont .
© 2012 Lucy C. Driscoll
Data from 183 participants were collected through an online survey focusing on the relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem across a specific age range. Parenting styles were assessed using a four-factor model while self-esteem was evaluated using two different scales. Multiple analyses were completed to find that self-esteem changed across the age range, and across parenting styles. The study looks at the ways in which these two variables changed. Implications, limitations and future research opportunities are discussed.
Driscoll, Lucy C., "Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem" (2013). Scripps Senior Theses . 155. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/155
Since February 26, 2013
Developmental Psychology Commons
Advanced Search
Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement
Privacy Copyright
Title: | The relationship between parenting style career decision self efficacy and career maturity of college student |
Researcher: | Chauhan, Anjana S |
Guide(s): | |
Keywords: | Career College student Parenting Relationship |
University: | Saurashtra University |
Completed Date: | 2015 |
Abstract: | None |
Pagination: | 164p. |
URI: | |
Appears in Departments: | |
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attached File | 60.48 kB | Adobe PDF | ||
481.64 kB | Adobe PDF | |||
157.94 kB | Adobe PDF | |||
524.52 kB | Adobe PDF | |||
809.36 kB | Adobe PDF | |||
404.53 kB | Adobe PDF | |||
5.28 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
7.79 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
3.46 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
3.46 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
10.23 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
1.6 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
9.41 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
3.89 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Stressors for families and communities, causes of the neglect, effects of the neglect, pablo case study, works cited.
Undoubtedly, parents raise their children differently, but what is important to understand is how those differences affect outcomes for children. There are three parenting styles according to a classical classification: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Hamon and Schrodt 151). To compare them, it is necessary to review the effective and ineffective techniques in each style.
First of all, the effectiveness of the authoritative style has been repeatedly confirmed in the relevant literature; in fact, it is now considered to be the most effective of the three styles (Williams et al. 1055). The reason is that the style combines high warmth toward children with high control. The authoritarian style features high levels of limit-setting and intrusiveness of childrenâs independence, which can be effective in terms of protecting children from bad influences. An effective technique of the permissive style is developing stronger family bonds, which increases childrenâs responsiveness.
However, there are also ineffective techniques. Authoritative parents may try to ineffectively demonstrate âresponsiveness and demandingnessâ (Lin and Billingham 254) in the same situation, which may cause children’s resistance. Authoritarian parents’ ineffective technique is to discipline their children to the extent of minimal autonomy, which negatively affects children’s development. Finally, an ineffective technique in permissive parenting is an indulgence. Failing to practice appropriate control, such parents may overlook or fail to prevent negative outcomes for children.
The three parenting styles have both effective and ineffective techniques. The authoritative style is generally considered the most effective, and the authoritarian one is generally considered the least effective; the permissive style is in between. However, it is acknowledged that certain effectiveness in terms of achieving positive outcomes for children can be found in each style.
Major stressors for families and communities that may cause abuse and neglect include unemployment, “over employment” (in this context: spending too much time at work as opposed to spending it with one’s family), financial problems, substance abuse, and the lack of community support. Unemployment can affect families from various cultures and lifestyles by increasing internal tension, provoking frequent conflicts, and raising child neglect (âUnemployment Triggers Increase in Child Neglectâ). Similarly, spending too much time at work makes parents pay less attention to their partners and children, which can cause neglect, and conflicts based on oneâs being too busy with work can lead to abuse.
Similarly, if a family experiences financial problems, its members may feel resentment and display aggression. Also, Bulman states that children may blame their parents for financial stress, and such negative events contributing to abuse and neglect can occur in families with different cultural backgrounds. Substance abuse is an especially strong stressor because families that face this problem have to go through a remarkably difficult experience of overcoming addiction. Finally, if a family is not properly supported by its community, it is fertile soil for abuse and neglect (“If You Suspect Child Abuseâ). Having to cope with family problems in a closed, unresponsive environment can lead to aggression and violence.
According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, neglect can be caused by a lack of social skills, inadequately developed emotional relationships, poor time management, and poverty. Parents’ failure to provide for their childrenâs basic needs may be displayed in childrenâs changed behavior and worsening performance. Children in low-income families and vulnerable populations are at most risk of being neglected, and financially challenged parents are at most risk to neglect.
Physical abuse can be caused by a high level of unresolved stress and anger and by the lack of positive models. The signs of such abuse may include wounds, injuries, and depressive moods. Children in families living âunder pressureâ (âPhysical Abuseâ), including poverty and social vulnerability, are at most risk of being abused, and parents in such families are at most risk of abusing, too.
Sexual abuse can be caused by sadism, psychological problems, inadequate ethical standards, and abusive power and control. The signs in victims include difficulties walking and sitting, venereal diseases, and avoidance behaviors (Child Welfare Information Gateway). Children who are at most risk of sexual abuse are those who are poorly supervised, have disabilities, lack knowledge on sexuality, and are exposed to potential abusers; the latter are usually found to be mentally ill or ethically challenged.
Psychological maltreatment can be caused by unresolved psychological issues. The signs of it primarily include âextremes in behavior, such as overly compliant or demanding behavior, extreme passivity, or aggressionâ (Child Welfare Information Gateway), and depressive symptoms. Parents with psychological issues and traumas for which they do not seek treatment are at most risk of emotionally maltreating their children, and children in such families are at most risk of being maltreated.
Neglect during pregnancy can cause a child’s poor health, developmental problems, and premature birth. During the age of birth to one year, neglect can undermine healthy development, especially in terms of the child’s feeling of safety. Neglected infants and toddlers can demonstrate delays in motor development and coordination (Child Welfare Pre-Service Training). Neglected four- to eight-year-olds may fail to develop necessary social skills, and neglected eight- to twelve-year-olds may experience conflicts and inability to build adequate relationships with other people. In adolescents, neglect may cause psychological problems, depressive moods, and suicidal thoughts.
Physical abuse during pregnancy can lead to injuries and traumas causing serious medical conditions, inborn diseases, or miscarriage. Abuse during the age of birth to eight years can undermine a childâs growth and physical development; also, psychological development can be compromised, as the child may fail to develop the feeling of security. In later ages, physical abuse (if a child has not experienced it before) may cause acute responses, such as major depressive symptoms or aggression and violent behaviors.
Similar to physical abuse, sexual abuse can lead to dramatic outcomes for an unborn child. In toddlers and infants, such abuse can cause injuries and subsequent diseases. In four- to twelve-year-olds, sexual abuse leads to psychological trauma that later results in anxiety, depression, and inability to build healthy relationships. In adolescence, sexual abuse may cause acute responses similar to the responses to physical abuse.
A psychologically maltreated mother may fail to manage her pregnancy correctly, and the negative outcomes include premature birth, malnutrition, or miscarriage. Among toddlers and infants, such maltreatment may lead to developmental delays manifested in poor social and intimacy-related skills. Emotionally maltreated four- to twelve-year-olds may experience insecurity or display violence. In adolescence, maltreatment of this kind results in aggression, withdrawal, and indifference.
A six-year-old boy named Pablo came to school one morning with disturbing injuries: he had a black eye, a cut lip, and several scratches on his forehead and his neck (âMaking a Callâ). If I were Pabloâs teacher, I would be deeply concerned about his injuries, and I would have to develop a plan on what to do to ensure that the boy receives all the necessary help and support. My plan should be based on the reporting guidelines provided by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and my ethical standards of an educator. This plan will primarily include reporting and supporting positive outcomes.
First of all, I need to report the incident. For this, I need to talk to Pablo first and to ask him to share, in an open and comforting environment, everything he feels he should share about what happened. It can be challenging for a child to tell about being abused, which is why I should be very delicate during the conversation. Further, I need to call the hotline and tell everything I know about the incident and Pabloâs family situation to the DFPS (âMaking a Callâ). Also, I need to convince all the other professionals who saw the boyâs injuries (including other educators and nurses) to report as well.
Second, I need to maintain confidentiality and support positive outcomes for Pablo and his family. For this, I will refuse to reveal the fact that I was the reporter even if I am confronted by the school administrators or Pabloâs parents. Second, I need to call the hotline again with the call reference I was given to check on the progress of the investigation and measures taken by Child Protective Services. Finally, I need to approach Pablo again during the same day to see how he is doing and to ensure that he does not have to stay at home alone with his presumably abusive father.
I know I would be horrified to meet a child with such injuries who would claim that his father inflicted them. Perhaps I would get very emotional, but I think it would be important for me to try to keep calm and properly report the incident according to the law. If Pabloâs situation was improved due to my intervention, I know I would feel accomplished because I did the right thing.
The highest number of children neglected, physically abused, and sexually abused in the United States from 1990 to 2012 was observed in 1995. I am not sure why the increase happened that year specifically, as I cannot identify any major political or economic turbulence at the time, but based on the causes of abuse described above, it can be assumed that the incidence of abuse is linked to socioeconomic factors. The neglect and abuse statistics show that 1995 was a challenging year in terms of the social environment in the country.
According to the statistics, female children are victims of abuse more often than male children. This can be explained by the fact that girls may be less capable of protecting themselves compared to boys who are more likely to demonstrate aggression and resistance to abuse. Also, it can be argued that girls are more frequently targeted by abusers because the former is perceived by the latter as more vulnerable and less likely to resist or confront their abusers.
The age group in which children were abused and neglected the most was two to five years.
Monica, 7, displays difficulties sitting. Based on the research on abuse presented above, I as an educator should plan how to address Monicaâs case. My actions will include talking to the child and reporting my suspicions.
First of all, it is necessary to talk to Monica to find out if she is in pain. In a very delicate manner, I should ask her if anyone hurt her recently. During the conversation, Monica should feel safe and protected, which I can attain by being open and showing genuine care and support.
Whether Monica tells me she was abused or keeps silent, I should report my suspicions of child abuse to the DFPS. According to the law, I will tell everything I know and explicitly explain the extent of my certainty that Monica has been subjected to sexual abuse. Further, I will call the hotline again to find out what measures Child Protective Services took.
I genuinely believe that this is my obligation to report the case. If Monica is sexually abused, I need to ensure that proper measures are taken. If she is not, I will still think that my precautions were justified.
Bulman, May. â Child Emotional Abuse Reports Surge 200% amid Cuts to Child Protection Services .â Independent , 2017. Web.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. What Is Child Abuse and Neglect? Recognizing the Signs and Symptoms . 2013. Web.
Child Welfare Pre-Service Training. The Effects of Abuse and Neglect on Child Development: Participant Guide . 2011. Web.
Hamon, Jordan D., and Paul Schrodt. “Do Parenting Styles Moderate the Association Between Family Conformity Orientation and Young Adults’ Mental Well-Being?” Journal of Family Communication , vol. 12, no. 2, 2012, pp. 151-166.
â If You Suspect Child Abuse, Will You Act? â Editorial. Chicago Tribune . 2017. Web.
Lin, Yi-Ching, and Robert E. Billingham. “Relationship between Parenting Styles and Gender Role Identity in College Students.” Psychological Reports , vol. 114, no. 1, 2014, pp. 250-271.
â Making the Call: Reporting Abuse/Neglect by Phone .â YouTube , uploaded by Texas DFPS. 2016. Web.
â Physical Abuse: Who Is Affected .â NSPCC . Web.
â Unemployment Triggers Increase in Child Neglect, According to New Research .â Medical Xpress . 2017. Web.
Williams, Kathryn E., et al. “Inflexible Parents, Inflexible Kids: A 6-year Longitudinal Study of Parenting Style and the Development of Psychological Flexibility in Adolescents.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence , vol. 41, no. 8, 2012, pp. 1053-1066.
IvyPanda. (2020, October 13). Parenting Style and the Development. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-style-and-the-development/
"Parenting Style and the Development." IvyPanda , 13 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-style-and-the-development/.
IvyPanda . (2020) 'Parenting Style and the Development'. 13 October.
IvyPanda . 2020. "Parenting Style and the Development." October 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-style-and-the-development/.
1. IvyPanda . "Parenting Style and the Development." October 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-style-and-the-development/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Parenting Style and the Development." October 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-style-and-the-development/.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Parenting Styles: Advantages and Disadvantages. Kids do what they are made to do because they want to escape the punishment. As parents support children, they become independent and strong-willed. The Three Parenting Styles. This style of parenting is where the parents let their children to make decisions on their own.
Parenting styles include authoritative, permissive, negligent, and authoritarian. Childhood Attachment and Parenting Styles. In social sciences and psychology, the term emotional attachment may refer to the process of understanding the expressive closeness. The Relationship Between Parenting Styles.
It can be the case when it comes to writing about parenting. Topics on this subject can cover anything from parent-child relationships to children's behavior and parenting styles. Thus, picking one good title to discuss, research, and write about can be essential. That's why our experts have gathered this list of topics on parenting.
The paper will analyze four main styles, namely indifferent, indulgent, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles. Parents Are Not to Blame for Obesity in Children. This paper discusses the issue of childhood and adolescent obesity and argues that parents should not be blamed for this problem.
The importance of having both parents present in a child's life and whether two-parent households are necessary for a child's well-being. 6. The cultural and societal norms surrounding two-parent households and.... View our collection of parenting style essays. Find inspiration for topics, titles, outlines, & craft impactful parenting style papers.
A college thesis on parenting styles must rely on your original research and ideas. You can build from existing definitions for parenting styles. You can also look for inspiration from theses already published and from evolving news reports and academic research on subjects ranging from ...
Parenting Styles . This thesis will be focusing on parenting styles based on the theory originally developed by Baumrind (1971). In her original typology there were three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive), with a fourth (neglectful) being introduced later on by Maccoby and Martin (1983).
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), this study examined authoritative parenting style as a. moderator of intergenerational transmission of nutrition values from parent to child. Two. hypotheses were tested related to parenting style, nutritional values, and child healthy food. choices.
Abstract. This research explores the relationship between parenting styles and child development in the community context. It delves into the various parenting styles, including authoritarian ...
Parenting styles are typically characterized by two dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness refers to "the extend parents control their children's behavior or demand their maturity" ("4 Types of parenting styles and their effects," 2021, para. 11). Responsiveness signifies "the degree parents are accepting and ...
Title: The Impact of Parenting Styles and Parent and Child Risk Factors on Child Behavioral and Learning Outcomes. This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences by: Laura Lee McIntyre, PhD, BCBA-D Nicole ...
A Thesis presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Psychology: Counseling ... parenting styles perceived, current attachment style, and emotion dysregulation in young adults (18-25 yrs old). This study used dimensions of attachment (anxious/avoidant) and ...
1.1. Parenting Styles. Parenting style is a collection of parents' attitudes, behaviors, and emotions [].Therefore, we can conceptualize parenting styles as representing general types of child-rearing that characterize parents' typical strategies and responses [].In particular, parental behavior is established in four specific behavioral dimensions: control, maturity demands, clarity of ...
detailed descriptions of observed outcomes for the children of each parenting style, Baumrind. gives us a model for backing up our claims about which pattern of teacher authority is most. likely to build better, autonomous writers. Baumrind's work has been praised in psychology as recently as this year by Criss and.
aumrind, 1966). Three main parenting styles have been addressed in the literatureregard. Permissive parenting is characterized by low demands and high warmth, whereas authoritarian. aracterized by high demands and low warmth; authori. ive parenting is associatedwith high demands and high warmth (Baumrind, 196.
Parenting is a dynamic process, influenced by socio-cultural factors. It is an important contributing factor to child development and childhood psychopathology.
The main focus was to examine the impact of different parenting styles on the behavior patterns of children.The results of our study showed that there is a correlationbetween parenting style and ...
communication evident in the authoritarian parenting style. Moreover, we hypothesized that participants exposed to a permissive parenting style, characterized by parents' aloofness and lack of control or discipline, would encounter more difficulty in career decision-making than those who experienced authoritative parenting.
parenting styles have on academic achievement in different contexts, that is, at different grade levels and in different countries (Murray, 2012; Seth & Ghormode, 2013; Shute et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2009). This study sought to determine the correlation between parenting styles and academic achievement of African-
Data from 183 participants were collected through an online survey focusing on the relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem across a specific age range. Parenting styles were assessed using a four-factor model while self-esteem was evaluated using two different scales. Multiple analyses were completed to find that self-esteem changed across the age range, and across parenting ...
Psychologists have therefore established three different parenting styles that are used by parents either with or without their consent. The parenting styles, permissive, authoritative and authoritarian are usually based on the communication styles, disciplinary strategies as well as warmth and nurture. This paper is therefore an in-depth ...
The relationship between parenting style career decision self efficacy and career maturity of college student: Researcher: Chauhan, Anjana S: Guide(s): Joshi, Gandharva R: Keywords: Career College student Parenting Relationship: University: ... Department of Psychology: Files in This Item: File Description Size Format ; 01_title.pdf: Attached ...
A lecturer at Sydney's Macquarie University, her research interests include breaking, street dance and hip-hop culture, while her PhD thesis focused on the intersection of gender and Sydney's ...
There are three parenting styles according to a classical classification: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Hamon and Schrodt 151). To compare them, it is necessary to review the effective and ineffective techniques in each style. Get a custom essay on Parenting Style and the Development. 183 writers online.