Instructional Planning for Young Children Guide Part 1

• Authoritarian parenting is a restrictive, punitive style in which parents exhort the child to follow their directions and respect their work and effort. The authoritarian parent places firm limits and controls on the child and allows little verbal exchange. For example, an authoritarian parent might say, “You will do it my way or else.” Authoritarian parents also might spank the child frequently, enforce rules rigidly but not explain them, and show rage toward the child. Children of authoritarian parents are often unhappy, fearful, and anxious about comparing themselves with others, fail to initiate activity, and have weak communication skills. Sons of authoritarian parents may behave aggressively (Hart & others, 2003). authoritarian parenting A restrictive, punitive style in which the parent exhorts the child to follow the parent’s directions and to respect their work and effort. Firm limits and controls are placed on the child, and little verbal exchange is allowed. This style is associated with children’s social incompetence, including a lack of initiative and weak communication skills. • Authoritative parenting encourages children to be independent but still places limits and controls on their actions. Extensive verbal give-and-take is allowed, and parents are warm and nurturant toward the child. An authoritative parent might put his arm around the child in a comforting way and say, “You know you should not have done that. Let’s talk about how you can handle the situation better next time.” Authoritative parents show pleasure and support in response to children’s constructive behavior. They also expect mature, independent, and age-appropriate behavior by children. Children whose parents are authoritative are often cheerful, self-controlled and selfreliant, and achievement oriented; they tend to maintain friendly relations with peers, cooperate with adults, and cope well with stress. authoritative parenting This style encourages children to be independent but still places limits and controls on their actions. Extensive verbal give-and-take is allowed, and parents are warm and nurturant toward the child. This style is associated with children’s social competence, achievement orientation, and self-reliance. • Neglectful parenting is a style in which the parent is very uninvolved in the child’s life. Children whose parents are neglectful develop the sense that other aspects of the parents’ lives are more important than they are. These children tend to be socially incompetent. Many have poor self-control and don’t handle independence well. They frequently have low self-esteem, are immature, and may be alienated from the family. In adolescence, they may show patterns of truancy and delinquency. neglectful parenting A style in which the parent is very uninvolved in the child’s life. It is associated with children’s social incompetence, especially a lack of self-control and poor self-esteem. • Indulgent parenting is a style in which parents are highly involved with their children but place few demands or controls on them. Such parents let their children do what they want. The result is that the children never learn to control their own behavior and always expect to get their way. Some parents deliberately rear their children in this way because they believe the combination of warm involvement and few restraints will produce a creative, confident child. However, children whose parents are indulgent rarely learn respect for others and have difficulty controlling their behavior. They might be domineering, egocentric, noncompliant, and have difficulties in peer relations. indulgent parenting A style in which parents are highly involved with their children but place few demands or controls on them. This is associated with children’s social incompetence, especially a lack of self-control and a lack of respect for others. These four classifications of parenting involve combinations of acceptance and responsiveness on the one hand and demand and control on the other (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). How these dimensions combine to produce authoritarian, authoritative, neglectful, and indulgent parenting is shown in Figure 14.3. FIGURE 14.3 CLASSIFICATION OF PARENTING STYLES. The four types of parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful) involve the dimensions of acceptance and responsiveness, on the one hand, and demand and control on the other. For example, authoritative parenting involves being both accepting/responsive and demanding/controlling. Parenting Styles in Context Do the benefits of authoritative parenting transcend the boundaries of ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and household composition? Although occasional exceptions have been found, evidence linking authoritative parenting with competence on the part of the child occurs in research across a wide range of ethnic groups, social strata, cultures, and family structures (Low, Snyder, & Shortt, 2012; Milevsky, 2012; Morris, Cui, & Steinberg, 2012; Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Nonetheless, researchers have found that in some ethnic groups, aspects of the authoritarian style may be associated with more positive child outcomes than Baumrind predicts (Parke & Buriel, 2006). Elements of the authoritarian style may take on different meanings and have different effects depending on the context. For example, Asian American parents often continue aspects of traditional Asian childrearing practices that have sometimes been described as authoritarian. The parents exert considerable control over their children’s lives. However, Ruth Chao (2001, 2005, 2007; Chao & Otsuki-Clutter, 2011; Chao & Tseng, 2002) argues that the style of parenting used by many Asian American parents is distinct from the domineering control of the authoritarian style. Instead, Chao argues that the control reflects parental concern and involvement in their children’s lives and is best conceptualized as a type of training. The high academic achievement of Asian American children may be a consequence of their “training” parents (Stevenson & Zusho, 2002). In recent research involving Chinese American adolescents and their parents, parental control was endorsed as were the Confucian parental goals of perseverance, working hard in school, obedience, and being sensitive to parents’ wishes (Russell, Crockett, & Chao, 2010). An emphasis on requiring respect and obedience is also associated with the authoritarian style, but in Latino child rearing this focus may be positive rather than punitive. Rather than suppressing the child’s development, it may encourage the development of a self and an identity that are embedded in the family and require respect and obedience (Harwood & others, 2002). Even physical punishment, another characteristic of the authoritarian style, may have varying effects in different contexts. African American parents are more likely than nonLatino White parents to use physical punishment (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). The use of physical punishment has been linked with increased externalized child problems (such as acting out and high levels of aggression) in non-Latino White families but not in African American families. One explanation of this finding points to the need for African American parents to enforce rules in the dangerous environments in which they are more likely to live (Harrison-Hale, McLoyd, & Smedley, 2004). In this context, requiring obedience to parental authority may be an adaptive strategy to keep children from engaging in antisocial behavior that can have serious consequences for their development (McElhaney & Allen, 2012). According to Ruth Chao, what type of parenting style do many Asian American parents use? Further Thoughts on Parenting Styles Several caveats about parenting styles are in order. First, the parenting styles do not capture the important themes of reciprocal socialization and synchrony (Crouter & Booth, 2013). Keep in mind that children socialize parents, just as parents socialize children (Capaldi, 2013; Shanahan & Sobolewski, 2013). Second, many parents use a combination of techniques rather than a single technique, although one technique may be dominant. Although consistent parenting is usually recommended, the wise parent may sense the importance of being more permissive in certain situations, more authoritarian under different circumstances, and more authoritative in others. Also, some critics argue that the concept of parenting style is too broad and that more research needs to be conducted to “unpack” parenting styles by studying various components of the styles (Grusec, 2011; Maccoby, 2007). For example, is parental monitoring more important than warmth in predicting child and adolescent outcomes? FIGURE 14.4 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. A 5-point scale was used to assess attitudes toward corporal punishment, with scores closer to 1 indicating an attitude against its use and scores closer to 5 suggesting an attitude favoring its use. Why are studies of corporal punishment correlational studies, and how does that affect their interpretation? Punishment For centuries, corporal (physical) punishment, such as spanking, has been considered a necessary and even desirable method of disciplining children. Use of corporal punishment is legal in every state in America. A national survey of U.S. parents with 3- and 4-year-old children found that 26 percent of parents reported spanking their children frequently, and 67 percent of the parents reported yelling at their children frequently (Regalado & others, 2004). A cross-cultural comparison found that individuals in the United States and Canada were among those with the most favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment and were the most likely to remember it being used by their parents (Curran & others, 2001) (see Figure 14.4). An increasing number of studies have examined the outcomes of physically punishing children, although those that have been conducted are correlational. Clearly, it would be highly unethical to randomly assign parents to either spank or not spank their children in an experimental study. Recall that cause and effect cannot be determined in a correlational study. In one correlational study, spanking by parents was linked with children’s antisocial behavior, including cheating, telling lies, being mean to others, bullying, getting into fights, and being disobedient (Strauss, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). A research review concluded that corporal punishment by parents is associated with higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression by the children (Gershoff, 2002). The review also found that corporal punishment is linked to lower levels of moral internalization and mental health (Gershoff, 2002). A study in six countries revealed that mothers’ use of physical punishment was linked to highest rates of aggression in their children (Gershoff & others, 2010). Another study indicated that a history of harsh physical discipline was related to adolescent depression and externalized problems, such as juvenile delinquency (Bender & others, 2007). And several recent longitudinal studies also have found that physical punishment of young children is associated with higher levels of aggression later in childhood and adolescence (Berlin & others, 2009; Gershoff & others, 2012; Lansford & others, 2011; Taylor & others, 2010). What are some reasons to avoid spanking or similar punishments? The reasons include the following: • When adults punish a child by yelling, screaming, or spanking, they are presenting children with out-of-control models for handling stressful situations. Children may imitate this aggressive, out-of-control behavior. • Punishment can instill fear, rage, or avoidance. For example, spanking the child may cause the child to avoid being around the parent and to fear the parent. • Punishment tells children what not to do rather than what to do. Children should be given feedback, such as “Why don’t you try this?” • Punishment can be abusive. Parents might unintentionally become so emotional when they are punishing the child that they become abusive (Durrant, 2008; Knox, 2010). Most child psychologists recommend handling misbehavior by reasoning with the child, especially explaining the consequences of the child’s actions for others. Time out, in which the child is removed from a setting that offers positive reinforcement, can also be effective. For example, when the child has misbehaved, a parent might take away TV viewing for a specified time. connecting through research Do Marital Conflict and Individual Hostility Predict the Use of Physical Punishment in Parenting? A longitudinal study assessed couples across the transition to parenting to investigate possible links between marital conflict, individual adult hostility, and the use of physical punishment with young children (Kanoy & others, 2003). Before the birth of the first child, the level of marital conflict was observed in a marital problem-solving discussion; answers to questionnaires regarding individual characteristics were also obtained. Thus, these characteristics of the couples were not influenced by characteristics of the child. When the children were 2 and 5 years old, the couples were interviewed about the frequency and intensity of their physical punishment of the children. On both occasions, the parents’ level of marital conflict was again observed in a marital problem-solving discussion. The researchers found that both hostility and marital conflict were linked with the use of physical punishment. Individuals with high rates of hostility on the prenatal measures used more frequent and more severe physical punishment with their children. The same was evident for marital conflict—when marital conflict was high, both mothers and fathers were more likely to use physical punishment in disciplining their young children. A final point about the use of punishment with children is that debate about its effects on children’s development continues (Gershoff & others, 2012; Grusec, 2011; Lansford & Deater-Deckard, 2012). Some experts (including Diana Baumrind) argue that much of the evidence for the negative effects of physical punishment has been based on studies in which parents acted in an abusive manner (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002). She concludes from her research that when parents used punishment in a calm, reasoned manner (which she says characterized most of the authoritative parents in her studies), children’s development benefitted. Thus, she emphasizes that physical punishment does not need to present children with an out-of-control adult who is yelling and screaming, as well as spanking. A research review of 26 studies concluded that only severe or predominant use of spanking, not mild spanking, compared unfavorably with alternative practices for disciplining children (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005). Indeed, there are few longitudinal studies of punishment and few studies that distinguish adequately between moderate and heavy use of punishment. Thus, in the view of some experts, available research evidence makes it difficult to tell whether the effects of physical punishment are harmful to children’s development, even though such a view might be distasteful to some individuals (Grusec, 2009). In addition to considering whether physical punishment is mild or out of control, another factor in evaluating effects on children’s development involves cultural contexts. Recent research has indicated that in countries such as Kenya in which physical punishment is considered normal and necessary for handling children’s transgressions, the effects of physical punishment are less harmful than in countries such as Thailand in which physical punishment is perceived as more harmful to children’s development (Lansford & others, 2005, 2013). One thing that is clear regarding research on punishment of children is that if physical punishment is used, it needs to be mild, infrequent, age-appropriate, and used in the context of a positive parent-child relationship (Grusec, 2011). It is also clear that when physical punishment involves abuse, it can be very harmful to children’s development (Cicchetti, 2013; Garcia, McKee, & Forehand, 2012). Earlier in this chapter, we described the family as a system and discussed possible links between marital relationships and parenting practices (Cox & others, 2004). Do marital conflict and individual hostility predict the use of physical punishment in parenting? To find out, read Connecting Through Research. What characterizes coparenting? Coparenting The relationship between marital conflict and the use of punishment highlights the importance of coparenting, which is the support that parents provide one another in jointly raising a child. Poor coordination between parents, undermining of the other parent, lack of cooperation and warmth, and disconnection by one parent are conditions that place children at risk for problems (Solmeyer & others, 2011; Talbot, Baker, & McHale, 2009). For example, a recent study revealed that coparenting influenced young children’s effortful control above and beyond maternal and paternal parenting by themselves (Karreman & others, 2008). And a recent study found that greater father involvement in young children’s play was linked to an increase in supportive coparenting (Jia & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2011). coparenting Support parents provide for each other in jointly raising children. connecting with careers Darla Botkin, Marriage and Family Therapist Darla Botkin is a marriage and family therapist who teaches, conducts research, and engages in marriage and family therapy. She is on the faculty of the University of Kentucky. Botkin obtained a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with a concentration in special education and then went on to receive a master’s degree in early childhood education. She spent the next six years working with children and their families in a variety of settings, including child care, elementary school, and Head Start. These experiences led Botkin to recognize the interdependence of the developmental settings that children and their parents experience (such as home, school, and work). She returned to graduate school and obtained a Ph.D. in family studies from the University of Tennessee. She then became a faculty member in the Family Studies program at the University of Kentucky. Completing further coursework and clinical training in marriage and family therapy, she became certified as a marriage and family therapist. Botkin’s current interests include working with young children in family therapy, addressing gender and ethnic issues in family therapy, and exploring the role of spirituality in family wellness. Darla Botkin (left ), conducting a family therapy session. For more information about what marriage and family therapists do, see page 45 in the Careers in Child Development appendix following Chapter 1.  Parents who do not spend enough time with their children or who have problems in child rearing can benefit from counseling and therapy. To read about the work of marriage and family counselor Darla Botkin, see Connecting with Careers. Child Maltreatment Unfortunately, punishment sometimes leads to the abuse of infants and children (Cicchetti, 2011, 2013). In 2009, approximately 702,000 U.S. children were found to be victims of child abuse at least once during that year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Eighty-one percent of these children were abused by a parent or parents. Laws in many states now require physicians and teachers to report suspected cases of child abuse, yet many cases go unreported, especially those involving battered infants. Whereas the public and many professionals use the term child abuse to refer to both abuse and neglect, developmentalists increasingly use the term child maltreatment (Cicchetti, 2011, 2013; Cicchetti & Toth, 2011). This term does not have quite the emotional impact of the term abuse and acknowledges that maltreatment includes diverse conditions. Child maltreatment involves grossly inadequate and destructive aspects of parenting. —DANTE CICCHETTI Contemporary Developmental Psychologist, University of Minnesota  This family of four children are having dinner in a cramped motel room that’s handling shelter overflow. Homeless advocates say many families are being denied shelter. What are some different types of child abuse? Types of Child Maltreatment The four main types of child maltreatment are physical abuse, child neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2004): • Physical abuse is characterized by the infliction of physical injury as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, burning, shaking, or otherwise harming a child. The parent or other person may not have intended to hurt the child; the injury may have resulted from excessive physical punishment (Milot & others, 2010). • Child neglect is characterized by failure to provide for the child’s basic needs (Newton & Vandeven, 2010). Neglect can be physical (abandonment, for example), educational (allowing chronic truancy, for example), or emotional (marked inattention to the child’s needs, for example). Child neglect is by far the most common form of child maltreatment. In every country where relevant data have been collected, neglect occurs up to three times as often as abuse (Benoit, Coolbear, & Crawford, 2008). • Sexual abuse includes fondling a child’s genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials (Bahali & others, 2010). • Emotional abuse (psychological/verbal abuse/mental injury) includes acts or omissions by parents or other caregivers that have caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, or emotional problems (van Harmelen & others, 2010).