PROCESS

Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context:

Observations of ‘‘Protective Parenting’’ in
First-Generation Latinos
MELANIE M. DOMENECH RODRIŁ GUEZ, PH.D. n
MELISSA R. DONOVICK, M.S. n
SUSAN L. CROWLEY, PH.D. n

To read this article in Spanish, please see this article’s Supporting Information on
Wiley InterScience (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117959054/home).

Current literature presents four primary parenting styles: authoritative, authori-

tarian, permissive, and neglectful. These styles provide an important shortcut for a
constellation of parenting behaviors that have been characterized as consisting of
warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting. Empirically, only warmth and de-
mandingness are typically measured. Research reporting on parenting styles in Latino
samples has been equivocal leading to questions about conceptualization and mea-
surement of parenting styles in this ethnic/cultural group. This lack of consensus may
result from the chasm between concepts (e.g., authoritarian parenting) and observable
parenting behaviors (e.g., warmth) in this ethnic group. The present research aimed to
examine parenting styles and dimensions in a sample of Latino parents using the two
usual dimensions (warmth, demandingness) and adding autonomy granting. Tradi-
tional parenting styles categories were examined, as well as additional categorizations
that resulted from adding autonomy granting. Fifty first-generation Latino parents
and their child (aged 4–9) participated. Parent–child interactions were coded with the
Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS). In this sample, the four traditional
parenting categories did not capture Latino families well. The combination of char-
acteristics resulted in eight possible parenting styles. Our data showed the majority
(61%) of Latino parents as ‘‘protective parents.’’ Further, while mothers and fathers
were similar in their parenting styles, expectations were different for male and female
children. The additional dimensions and implications are discussed. The importance
of considering the cultural context in understanding parenting in Latino families is
emphasized, along with directions for future research.

n
Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT
This work was supported by an NIMH K01 grant (MH066297) and a Utah State University New Faculty
Grant to Dr. Domenech Rodrı́guez. The observational scale formation and primary coding was conducted by
Ms. Donovick as part of her thesis research. Both Dr. Domenech Rodrı́guez and Ms. Donovick contribute to
this manuscript equally, and are ordered alphabetically by last name. The authors wish to acknowledge
Robert Ortega for his support in coding the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Melanie M. Domenech
Rodrı́guez, at the Utah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail:
Melanie.Domenech@usu.edu

195
Family Process, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2009 r FPI, Inc.
196 / FAMILY PROCESS

Keywords: Latino; Hispanic; Parenting Style; Parenting Dimensions; Parent–Child

Interactions

Fam Proc 48:195–210, 2009

O ver 40 years ago, Diana Baumrind (1966) set the stage for major shifts in research
and practice in the area of parenting by presenting three primary parenting styles
that could be used as a shortcut to describe a wide-ranging constellation of parent
behaviors and childrearing goals. A couple of decades later Maccoby and Martin (1983)
added a conceptual fourth style, neglectful, for which Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg,
and Dornbusch (1991) provided empirical support. These parenting labelsFauthori-
tarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectfulFhave permeated research, practice,
and popular culture. These parenting style labels provide an important framework for
a constellation of parenting behaviors and childrearing goals and have been primarily
characterized as consisting of varied combinations of warmth, demandingness, and
autonomy granting. However, although the styles are conceptually built on these
three dimensions, only two dimensions are typically measured: warmth and de-
mandingness.
An authoritarian parenting style is characterized by low responsiveness, high de-
mandingness, and low levels of autonomy granting. An authoritative parenting style is
characterized by high responsiveness, high demandingness, and autonomy granting.
A permissive parent shows high levels of responsiveness and autonomy granting and
low levels of demandingness. A neglectful parent is disengaged, showing low levels of
both responsiveness and demandingness and autonomy granting (Karavasilis, Doyle,
& Markiewicz, 2003).
Generally, research supports the use of these parenting style labels in a
majority culture. However, when examining the literature on Latinos’ parenting
styles the support is less robust. Research targeting the observation of these styles
in Latino samples has been equivocal leading to questions about conceptualization
and measurement of parenting style in this specific ethnic/cultural group. One
possible explanation for this lack of consensus is that the chasm between the con-
cepts (e.g., authoritarian parenting) and the observable parenting behaviors
(e.g., warmth) is too great when applied to a cultural group with potentially different
childrearing practices and goals from the mainstream. Alternatively, it is possible
that, contrary to Baumrind’s original gold standard, many of these studies have
been conducted using survey measures which have obscured or confused results.
To our knowledge, no studies of Latinos’ parenting styles have used observational
procedures.
The present research aimed to better understand the disparate findings in the
literature on Latinos’ parenting styles by examining Baumrind’s parenting styles
(i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, neglectful) in a study using direct
observations of parent–child behaviors. In addition to using an observational
methodology, the dimension of autonomy granting as originally conceptualized
by Baumrind was added. Finally, and given early warnings of gender as an im-
portant childrearing context by both Baumrind and also Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979),
we examined the influence of parent and child gender on the three parenting
dimensions.

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 197
BAUMRIND’S BUILDING BLOCKS
Baumrind’s seminal work presented labels for parenting practices in the service of
examining parents’ behaviors and attitudes on child behavior. A major motivation
underlying her classic work seemed to be to debunk myths surrounding the impact of
parents’ disciplinary practices and provide empirical evidence that tempered parental
control was ideal in childrearing. Interestingly, in presenting her evidence, Baumrind
also set the stage for future research and made explicit suggestions for clinical ap-
plications. She explicitly selected published studies for the literature review of her
1966 paper in which child behaviors are directly observed, and parents’ behaviors were
either observed or obtained through interviews (rather than surveys), thus making a
statement about the importance of observational data in parenting research. Further,
she cogently contextualized behavioral research that might suggest that punishment
is ineffective by noting that parental love and respect serve as powerful variables in
making punishments effective.
In providing an affective-interactional context, Baumrind built a bridge between
parenting styles, parenting behaviors, and existing research to build knowledge based
on animal models and extended it to humans. She also set the stage for empirically
based intervention strategies. In her 1966 article, she presented 12 myths and care-
fully debunked each one, providing data to support each of her arguments. Notably
she argued for ‘‘mild punishment’’ coupled with specific parental feedback to the child
about the reason for the punishment and the presentation of an alternative appro-
priate behavior. She also presented evidence for the importance of active correction of
child misbehavior. Both of these recommendations can be clearly and broadly seen in
parenting interventions today (e.g., Kazdin, 2005). Similarly she recommended that
parents not use parental love as a contingency for behavior, and even stated that this
action ‘‘probably poses a greater threat to the child’s ability to make a conscious choice
than even the use of unqualified power assertion’’ (p. 904). The focus on high levels of
warmth and maintenance of positive parent–child bonds is also a hallmark of con-
temporary empirically based parenting interventions.
In her original manuscript Baumrind (1966) did not outline the three dimensions of
warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting, although she mentioned them all
repeatedly. Indeed, she stated ‘‘It is of interest to evaluate empirically the effects on
children of various combinations of extreme scores on . . . [parental] ‘firm control’ and
‘restricts child’s autonomy,’ rather than to assume that they form a single dimen-
sion.’’ (p. 901). By 1996, Baumrind was clearly delineating ‘‘responsiveness’’ and
‘‘demandingness’’ as the primary dimensions in parenting. Interestingly, empirical
investigations have reported finding the three dimensions, however, chose not to in-
corporate autonomy granting in statistical analyses (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991).

RELEVANCE OF PARENTING STYLES AND DIMENSIONS

Parenting styles have been useful in understanding complex behaviors and atti-
tudes of caregivers and how these relate to child outcomes. Because these styles in
effect ‘‘package’’ complex information into four memorable and simple categories,
they are highly useful in intervention (and clinician training) contexts. The four
parenting styles are based on variations in levels of the parenting dimensions of re-
sponsiveness (warmth), demandingness (parental control), and autonomy granting,
and have been found to relate to child outcomes.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

198 / FAMILY PROCESS

Warmth implies being involved and interested in the child’s activities, listening to
the child, and being supportive (Broderick & Blewitt, 2003). Demandingness refers to
the amount of control a parent imposes on a child (e.g., expectations for behavior), the
implementation of standards and rules, and the degree to which a parent enforces the
standards and rules (Broderick & Blewitt, 2003). Autonomy granting is described as
allowing children autonomy and individual expression within the family (Steinberg,
Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbush, 1994).
The authoritative parenting style has been correlated with positive child outcomes
such as social and cognitive functioning (Baumrind, 1989, 1993), academic achieve-
ment (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, &
Darling, 1992), self esteem (Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000), social adjustment
(Stewart et al., 1998), and social competence (Fagan, 2000). The authoritative par-
enting style is also correlated with low rates of child psychopathology (Reiss et al.,
1995), while authoritarian and permissive parenting styles have been shown to be
associated with increased rates of child psychopathology (Shelton, Frick, & Wootton,
1996).
Although there is a substantial body of literature addressing parenting styles, there
are significant limitations when attempting to understand parenting in Latino fami-
lies. First, the vast majority of studies base their findings on parenting styles that were
conceptualized using majority White, middle class families’ values, cultural norms,
and parental expectancies. Inferences made regarding child outcomes are based on
parenting styles which may or may not apply to Latino families. The strongest indi-
cation of a misalignment between the traditional parenting styles and Latino par-
enting comes from the equivocal findings in the literature regarding the predominant
style for Latino parents as well as the ability of parenting style to predict child out-
comes. These equivocal findings coupled with historical (Baumrind, 1966, 1996;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and more recent (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002) calls for a focus
on the contexts in which parenting occur, suggest that attempts to further elucidate
Latinos’ parenting styles is warranted.

PARENTING STYLES IN LATINO FAMILIES

The available literature concerning Latino parenting styles is sparse and inconsistent.
Some researches have described Latinos as permissive (Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey,
1994) and others as authoritarian (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Hammer & Turner,
1990). Vega (1990) found that parent and child interactions were characterized by
warmth and nurturing. Controversy that emerges in the existing literature regarding
parenting styles and child outcomes among Latino families highlights several themes.
Some researchers have concluded that an authoritative parenting style is predictive of
overall positive child outcomes in Latino families (Carlson et al., 2000; Dornbush et al.,
1987; Radziszewka et al., 1996; Steinberg, Dornbush et al., 1992; Steinberg, Lamborn
et al., 1992) In contrast, other researchers contend that authoritative parenting predicts
positive child outcomes in White children only, and the same association is not evident in
Latino families (Lindahl & Malik, 1999; Park & Bauer, 2002).
As an alternative to the predominant categorical conceptualization of parenting
styles, researchers have suggested the use of dimensions instead. Barber (1997) and
Darling and Steinberg (1993) have suggested the separate parenting dimensions of
warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting are better indicators of parenting

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 199
characteristics than parenting styles. Stewart and Bond (2002) theorize that parent-
ing dimensions are universal and thus are better indicators of parenting behaviors
especially in ethnic cultural groups where the culture-specific meaning of the behavior
may differ. It is important to note, however, that others (e.g., Stewart & Bond, 2002)
assert that parenting styles are optimally useful in research and practice because they
accurately describe naturally occurring clusters of parenting behaviors. Examining
parenting dimensions as discrete entities has the potential of creating sets of par-
enting characteristics that are not reflective of what is real (Darling & Steinberg,
1993). In addition, parenting styles are thought to be cohesive and fairly consistent
across time and situations (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Maccoby & Martin, 1993).

STUDY PURPOSE
This paper presents findings on an examination of parenting behaviors that are
conceptualized across parenting dimensions and parenting styles using videotaped
observations. The observational scale developed to measure dimensions and styles is
presented. The paper investigates the applicability of existing parenting categories
(i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, neglectful) to first-generation Latino/a
mothers and fathers of young children. New potential categories of parenting styles
are presented (see Table 1). The categorization of Latino parents into these eight style
categories is presented and differences across parent gender and child gender are
examined. The investigation occurs in the context of direct parent–child observations.

METHODS
Participants
Spanish speaking Latino families with a child between 4 and 9 years of age were
included in the study. At least one parent was a first-generation immigrant. A total of
50 families were recruited from a rural western area. One family did not complete the
study resulting in 46 fathers and 49 mothers participating (M age ¼ 33.9, SD ¼ 5.5).
The majority of families were two-parent (88%), of Mexican origin (81%; 17% reported
other Latino origins; 2% did not report origin), and reported a yearly income
o$35,000 (83.2%; 15.8% below $15,000, 46.3% $15,000–$25,000, 7.4% above $35,000,
9.5% did not report income). Twenty male (40%) and 30 female (60%) children par-
ticipated and the average age was 6.64 years (SD ¼ 1.44). There were one to seven

TABLE 1
Parenting Styles

Warmth Demandingness Autonomy granting

Authoritative High High High

Authoritarian Low High Low
Permissive High Low High
Neglectful Low Low Low
Protective High High Low
Cold Low High High
Affiliative High Low Low
Neglectful II Low Low High

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

200 / FAMILY PROCESS

TABLE 2
Demographic Information on Child and Parent Participants

Characteristics of child participants n %

Age of Children:
4 years 3 6
5 years 11 22
6 years 8 16
7 years 11 22
8 years 13 26
9 years 4 8
Family constellation
Biological parents (intact family) 44 88
Step parent and biological parent 1 4
Single parent: mother only 3 6
Single parent: father only 1 2
Parent education
High school education or less 80 83
Some college 7 7
College graduate 6 6
Completed education in country of origin 93 97
Completed education in USA 3 3

children in the home (M ¼ 3.1, SD ¼ 1.3). Sample demographic characteristics are

presented in Table 2.
Level of acculturation was assessed using Cuéllar, Arnold, and Maldonado’s (1995)
Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II. The majority of participants
were classified as traditional/separate (78.9%, n ¼ 75), with 17.9% (n ¼ 17) identified as
bicultural, and 1.1% (n ¼ 1 each) classified as each assimilated and marginalized (data
was missing for one participant). These orientations can be easily understood in a
2  2 grid where Mexican orientation and Anglo orientation are juxtaposed in high
and low categories. Traditional participants are high in Mexican orientation and low
in Anglo orientation. The inverse is true for those who are assimilated. Bicultural
individuals score highly in both Mexican and Anglo orientation and marginalized
persons score low on both dimensions.
The sample was recruited through local churches, announcements at schools and
community parent support groups, flyers placed throughout the community, personal
face-to-face recruitment by research assistants, and word of mouth by participants.
Media outreach was also utilized, including a radio advertisement on a local station
during Spanish-language programming and a web posting. Research on the present
sample showed that word-of-mouth was a critical recruitment strategy to obtain a
prevention sample (Domenech Rodrı́guez, Rodrı́guez, & Davis, 2006).

Procedures
Participants in the current study were enrolled in a larger study aimed at culturally
adapting a parenting intervention for Spanish speaking families. Potential partici-
pants made initial contact with the researcher via telephone. Study inclusion criteria
included participants that were Spanish speaking and had a child between the ages of
4 and 9. Participants that met inclusion criteria were scheduled for appointments at

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 201
the convenience of the family. If families had more than one child in the age range,
they were asked to identify the child that they struggled with most. Data collection
took place in one visit lasting about 212 hours at a university psychology services clinic.
Childcare and transportation were provided for families if needed.
Upon arrival, participants were welcomed and provided a brief introduction to the
facility. Parents completed informed consents and were allowed time to ask questions.
Special emphasis was made to ensure participants that all information provided by
participants would be kept confidential including their legal status. Once informed
consent was obtained, parents completed the study questionnaires. Two research
assistants were present to assist the family and answer any questions.
Observational data were collected in a separate room where there were a television and
video recorder present as well as three video cameras placed throughout the room. Four
interaction tasks were completed and all were videotaped. First, both parents (one parent
in a single parent family) participated in a 5-minute cooperation task with their child.
After the cooperative task, one parent (determined randomly) was asked to return to the
research laboratory to finish completing study questionnaires. The remaining parent and
the child participated in two 5-minute problem-solving tasks, one child-selected and one
parent-selected. Problem-solving tasks were selected based on a list of common events that
lead to parent–child conflict (e.g., child interrupts parents when they want time alone);
once the most problematic event was selected, as self-reported by parent or child, the dyad
was asked to discuss the problem and attempt to find a solution. Finally, the parent–child
dyad engaged in an 8-minute long skills-building task. This task included a packet of
academic English-language worksheets that included reading, math, and grammar that
was one grade level above the child’s grade. Thus, the child was challenged and required
the assistance of the parent. At the conclusion of the skills-building task a short break was
taken with snacks and refreshments provided. Following the break, the same procedures
were completed with the other parent present if a two-parent family. When the second
segment of the study was completed, a debriefing with parents took place. Two parent
families were paid $50 and single parents were paid $25 for participation. In all cases, a
small gift was given to the participating child.

Materials
Paper and pencil measures included a demographic information sheet and the ac-
culturation measure.

Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS)

The Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS) is a standardized coding
scheme used to quantify parent behaviors demonstrated in parent–child interactions.
The coding scheme was developed specifically for use in the present study based on
conceptualizations of authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful par-
enting styles (Lamborn et al., 1991) as well as the parenting dimensions of warmth,
demandingness, and autonomy granting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
Scale Development
Development of the P-SOS coding scheme took place in three phases. First, the
conceptual and empirical literature on parenting styles and the three parenting di-
mensions was reviewed. As part of this process, existing measures used to assess the

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

202 / FAMILY PROCESS

constructs of interest were identified including measures such as The Authoritative

Parenting index (Jackson, Henricksen, & Vangie, 1998), and the HOME inventory
(Bradley & Caldwell, 1984) among others (e.g., Hasan & Power, 2002; Park & Bauer,
2002; Stewart & Bond, 2002). The initial item pool contained items taken or adapted
from existing measures along with some created by the research team. The pilot
measure contained 20 items assessing parental warmth, 18 items assessing demand-
ingness, and 20 items assessing autonomy granting.
The second phase of development included getting feedback on the pilot measure
from expert raters in the field of parenting. To identify experts, an e-mail was sent to
two American Psychological Association (APA) listservsFDivision 45 (Ethnic Mi-
norities) and a broad early career network for APA membersFasking for participants.
This resulted in seven participants. Known experts from the Oregon Social Learning
Center were contacted and asked to participate resulting in two more expert raters.
Finally we asked local experts, including doctoral students and faculty with special-
ization in parenting research and/or clinical practice. This last effort resulted in three
expert participants. Overall, 12 experts responded with interest and 10 provided
feedback. The expert rater sample reported 10.89 mean number of years involved in
parenting research (range 3–30). Expert raters were sent the pilot coding form with
instruction to rate each item by how well (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly
agree) they judged the item to tap the construct being assessed (warmth, demand-
ingness, autonomy granting). In addition, the expert raters were asked to judge
overall how well each construct was assessed (very poorly to very well) and were asked
for any additional comments or suggestions. Items rated as ‘‘agree’’ or ‘‘strongly
agree’’ by 80% or more of the expert raters were retained.
Expert raters had the highest degree of agreement on item suitability for the
warmth scale. When the 80% agreement rule was applied, 18 of the 20 items were
selected for inclusion into the final observational scale. Because of high items overlap,
one item ‘‘Parent is responsive to child’s feelings or needs’’ was dropped resulting in
17 items assessing warmth. For the autonomy granting scale 12 items were eliminated
based on low agreement (o80%) from the expert raters leaving eight items on the final
scale. Demandingness proved to be the most problematic scale. Only two items were
selected by at least 80% of the raters as measuring the construct: ‘‘Parent is strict,’’
and ‘‘Parent has high expectations of child’s behavior.’’ A review of suggestions from
the expert raters indicated that the scale seemed to be tapping two separate dimen-
sions of demandingness, ‘‘high expectations/supportive’’ and ‘‘high expectations/
nonsupportive or coercive.’’ As a result, almost all items were retained and divided
into two scales labeled supportive demandingness (9 items) and nonsupportive de-
mandingness (8 items). One item was eliminated because some reviewers noted that it
was more in line with the construct of warmth. In line with the conceptualizations of
authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectful parenting in the literature,
the ‘‘high expectations/supportive scale’’ was used as a measure of demandingness.
The items of the P-SOS are presented in Table 3.
The third phase of instrument development included training coders to use the
measure and assessing the ability of separate coders to reliably rate each item/di-
mension. Coders were trained starting with a review of the conceptualized parenting
constructs in the measure through discussion and exercise during several training
sessions. Next, the coders viewed and coded videotapes (not used in the study) until an
acceptable level of reliability (.70 or above) was reached between the two coders.

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 203
TABLE 3
Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS)
Warmth
1. Parent makes the child feel better when something is wrong
2. Parent listens when child has something to say
3. Parent shows interest in child
4. Parent praises child
5. Parent and child have warm moments together
6. Parent uses terms of endearment with their child
7. Parent’s voice conveys positive feeling when speaking of the child or to the child
8. Parent is responsive to the child during session
9. Parent gives comfort and understanding when child is upset
10. Parent physically expresses affection (e.g., hugging, kissing, holding)
11. Parent encourages the child to talk about the child’s troubles
12. Parent is easy going and is relaxed with the child
13. Parent shows patience with the child
14. Parent explodes in anger towards child (RS)
15. Parent expresses disagreement with child in harsh/rough manner (RS)
16. Parent yells or shouts when child misbehaves (RS)
17. Parent shows with actions that he/she loves the child
Autonomy Granting
1. Parent encourages the child to look at both sides of the issue
2. Parent asks child’s opinion about decisions that will affect the child
3. Parent listens to the child’s point of view even when parent disagrees with the child
4. Parent helps child understand impact of their behavior by encouraging talking about the
consequences
5. Parent takes into account child’s preferences when making family plans
6. Parent allows child to give input into family rules
7. Parent encourages child to freely express himself/herself even when disagreeing with parents
8. Parent takes child’s desires into account before asking the child to do something
Demandingness: Supportive
1. Parent clearly states rules to be followed
2. Parent removes privileges as punishment for misbehavior
3. Parent sets and enforces rules
4. Parent provides instructions to the child for appropriate behavior
5. Parent gives clear commands to the child in session
6. Parent monitors (is attentive) to child’s behavior in session
7. Parent seems in good control of child in session
8. Parent does not allow or tolerate behavior that is immature or problematic
9. Parent has high expectations of child’s behavior
Demandingness: Nonsupportive
1. Parent seems to care about having their child obey them
2. Parent seems to control their child’s choice of what they are like
3. Parent seems control their child’s choice of what they wear (clothes)
4. Parent is overly strict
5. Parent is controlling of the child
6. Parent expresses withdrawal of love if child does not live up to parent’s expectation
7. Parent is overly rigid regarding the following of rules
8. Parent has the attitude that all rules are nonnegotiable

Scoring
Two coders coded all behavioral observation tapes. The coders were a Latina
graduate student and a Latino undergraduate research assistant, both in psychology.
Following the coding of 15% of study tapes, the intraclass correlations between coders

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

204 / FAMILY PROCESS

ranged from .74 to .87. In order to safeguard against coder drift reliability was as-
sessed at random. Videotapes of the two problem-solving tasks and the skill-building
task were coded on each dimension. The initial cooperative task included both parents
resulting in a different parenting context. To assess each parent–child dyad sepa-
rately, the cooperative task was not used in scoring parenting behaviors. For each
taped interaction, coders rated the parent’s behavior on a scale of 1 (very untrue) to 5
(very true) with a midpoint of 3 (unclear) for each item of the P-SOS. A mean item
score was calculated for each parent (if both participated) on each dimension (warmth,
autonomy granting, demandingness-supportive) across tasks. For the purposes of
categorizing parenting into categories (e.g., authoritative, authoritarian), a mean
score of 3.01 was considered to be ‘‘high’’ with scores of 3.0 and below consider ‘‘low.’’

RESULTS
Parenting Dimensions
Parenting dimensions among Spanish speaking Latino parents were examined by
calculating descriptive statistics of individual parenting dimensions (i.e. warmth,
demandingness, and autonomy granting). Latino parents scored high on warmth
(M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ .32, range 2.69–4.53), high on demandingness (M ¼ 3.66, SD ¼ .43,
range 2.22–4.63), and medium to low on the autonomy granting dimension (M ¼ 2.65,
SD ¼ .92, range 1.0–4.21). Thus, parenting dimensions were observable in parent–
child interactions of Spanish speaking Latino parents. The three scales showed low to
moderate correlations with autonomy granting and demandingness having a negli-
gible relationship (r ¼ .028), while demandingness and autonomy granting both had a
moderate relationship with warmth (r ¼ .30 and .31, respectively, po.01). Internal
consistency reliability data was calculated across all four tasks (including the family
fun task) and was adequate to good. Cronbach’s as for the warmth, autonomy
granting, and demandingness scales were .79, .91, and .70, respectively. Although not
used in analyses for the present manuscript, the nonsupportive demandingness scale
also showed good reliability (a ¼ .84) and our sample showed relatively low levels of
nonsupportive demandingness (M ¼ 2.2, SD ¼ .53, range 1.00–3.63).

Parenting Styles
Consistent with the theoretical model of Baumrind (1991) and the work carried out
by Steinberg, Dornbush et al. (1992) and Steinberg, Lamborn et al. (1992), authori-
tative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting styles were created. The
use of high and low scores across these dimensions resulted in eight possible parenting
categories, the ones set forth in the literature and those parents who scored high on
warmth, high on demandingness, and low on autonomy granting which was labeled
‘‘protective’’ and parents who scored high on warmth, low on demandingness, and low
on autonomy granting which was labeled ‘‘affiliative.’’ There were three categories
with no parents in them: authoritarian, cold, and neglectful II (see Table 1).
The majority (61%) of parents were categorized as protective, followed by 31%
classified as authoritative (see Table 4). The four traditional parenting categories only
accounted for approximately one-third of the Latino families, suggesting that tradi-
tional parenting categories do not capture Latinos’ parenting styles well. Notably,
however, full application of the original theoretical model (i.e., including autonomy
granting) captured the parenting behaviors observed.

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 205
TABLE 4
Parenting Styles among Latino Parents (N ¼ 95)

N % Warmth Demandingness Autonomy granting

Authoritative 29 31 High High High

Authoritarian 0 0 Low High Low
Permissive 1 1 High Low High
Neglectful 1 1 Low Low Low
Protective 58 61 High High Low
Affiliative 6 6 High Low Low

Differences in Parenting Dimensions by Parent and Child Gender

The mean scores on the parenting dimensions of warmth, autonomy granting, and
demandingness were calculated and are presented in Table 5. Parents were generally
high on warmth and demandingness, and lower on autonomy granting. When the
means for each dimension were compared for mothers and fathers, the results indicate
that parents display relatively similar levels on each dimension (no statistically sig-
nificant difference at po.05). Comparing mean scores for male and female children
indicated that parents were lower on autonomy granting for girls as compared with
boys (t ¼ 3.36, df ¼ 93, p ¼ .001) and higher on demandingness with their daughters as
compared with their sons (t ¼  2.57, df ¼ 93, p ¼ .012). The differences in parenting
based on child gender raises the question, is there an interaction effect between the
parent’s gender and the child’s gender in parenting? Three 2  2 ANOVAs were cal-
culated with parent gender and child gender as the independent factors and the three
parenting dimensions as the dependent variables. None of the parent  child gender
interactions were statistically significant.

DISCUSSION
Parenting styles research has been marked by two major disconnects: (1) the con-
ceptual importance of three parenting dimensions (i.e., warmth, demandingness,
autonomy granting) vis-à-vis the empirical exclusion of autonomy granting, and (2)
the predominant use of self-report scales to measure the dimensions in light of Ba-
umrind’s (1966) explicit statement regarding the importance of observational re-
search. Some parenting researchers (e.g., DeGarmo & Forgatch, 2005) have relied
heavily on observational methods and decades of research have supported the im-
portance of including observational measures to best understand parent–child inter-
actions and outcomes. Indeed, behavioral observation methods have been used

TABLE 5
Means of Parenting Dimensions for Total Samples, by Parent Gender, and by Child Gender

Mom Dad Boy Girl Total

(n ¼ 49) (n ¼ 46) (n ¼ 38) (n ¼ 57) (n ¼ 95)

Warmth 3.85 (.31) 3.82 (.33) 3.79 (.29) 3.86 (.34) 3.83 (.32)
Autonomy Granting 2.56 (.87) 2.59 (.99) 2.95 (.89) n 2.33 (.87) n 2.58 (.92)
Demandingness 3.73 (.40) 3.60 (.45) 3.53 (.44) n 3.75 (.40) n 3.66 (.43)
n
Statistically significant at po.05.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

206 / FAMILY PROCESS

successfully in multicultural (e.g., Domenech Rodrı́guez et al., 2006) and cross-

cultural (e.g., Tam & Lam, 2003) samples. In the context of understanding parenting
styles and maximizing their utility for research and intervention purposes, it is critical
to consider their applicability across ethnic/cultural groups (e.g., Kotchick & Fore-
hand, 2002). The disparate findings in the literature regarding Latinos’ parenting
styles called into question the applicability of the parenting styles rubric to Latino
samples. Further, questions could also be raised about the applicability of mainstream
parenting interventions to this group since they are based on these concepts. The
present study suggests that the omission of autonomy granting as an observed and
measured dimension may offer some explanation for the inconsistent findings.
A major contribution of the present study is the development of the Parenting Style
Observation Rating Scale. The P-SOS scale is a compilation of published self-report
scales with added items and will be helpful to parenting styles researchers interested
in using an observational method to examine parenting styles. An examination of the
scale items shows a fair amount of variability regarding how these are measured and,
as such, may also explain the differences in findings across studies. The P-SOS is a
relatively comprehensive scale that shows promise of utility through its ease of ap-
plication and promising preliminary psychometric characteristics. Along with the
potential to further parenting style research, the scale can also used be used by cli-
nicians seeking to intervene with Latino families. From an intervention perspective,
the P-SOS can assist clinicians to gain a firmer grasp on the key characteristics on
which families may differ. Further, the measure can provide specific data on parenting
behaviors that can be targeted and tracked throughout an intervention.
The present study has limitations in scope and generalizability. Further research is
needed to better understand the concurrent and predictive validity of P-SOS for La-
tinos and its applicability to other ethnic/cultural groups. The present sample is rel-
atively small, entirely Latino, rural, predominantly Mexican-origin (88%), and low
income. Further research with varied Latino samples, such as nonimmigrants, and
Latinos with varied levels of acculturation, educational attainment, and economic
status would shed light on the generalizability of these findings to other Latinos.
Further work with other Latino samples is particularly relevant given that research
shows a relationship between Latino parents’ practices and children’s outcomes in the
context of culturally relevant experiences (e.g., in identity development; Schwartz,
Mason, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2008), and diverse experiences across immigrant and
nonimmigrant samples (e.g., Parra-Cardona, Córdova, Holtrop, Villarruel, & Wieling,
2008).
Another area for extending the present research is related to developmental con-
text. The children in this sample are between 4 and 9 years of age, which may be
strongly related to the relatively low levels of autonomy granting in the sample; this is
not necessarily due to developmentally inappropriate tasks, but with parental ex-
pectations of what constitute appropriate contributions from children in parent–child
interactions at a particular age. However, recent survey research by Ingoldsby, Sch-
vaneveldt, Supple, and Bush (2003) with two international samples of Latino ado-
lescents shows low level of autonomy granting in their sample as well. Of particular
interest is their finding that autonomy granting, among other parenting variables,
predicted a lower achievement orientation. In a U.S.-based qualitative study, Gui-
lamo-Ramos et al. (2007) with Latino immigrant mothers and their adolescents, the
authors reported that mothers stated the importance of continued or even increasing

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 207
control and monitoring during adolescence. Thus, the concept of autonomy and the
parental practices associated with autonomy granting could benefit from further
study within Latino samples.
The fact that the scale is built on a foundation of well established measures suggests
that there is a good likelihood that the P-SOS is applicable for use with White
Americans, at a minimum, and possibly a broader socioeconomic group than the low
income group represented in the current sample. However, there is ample documen-
tation for proceeding with care in using scales developed for one cultural group with
another (e.g., Steele, Nesbitt-Daly, Daniel, & Forehand, 2005). Finally, a critical ex-
amination of the subscales’ reliabilities suggests that the demandingness scale could
be improved to achieve better reliability, with more items that more broadly measure
the construct. The creation of the subscale presented challenges from its inception
stemming from the broad conceptualization of demandingness in the literature as
potentially positive or negative and representing a wide range of behaviors.
A particular strength of the present findings is their potential for broadly informing
research and practice. Domenech-Rodrı́guez and Wieling (2004) advocate for
‘‘decentering’’ interventions; in order words they explicitly encouraged using inter-
vention research with ethnic minority samples to inform research and interventions
with ethnic majority samples. That the present research was carried out with a Latino
sample is a function of a need created by research findings and the research agenda of
the authors. Prior research with a culturally diverse sample (Lamborn et al., 1991)
suggests that there is empirical support for examining parenting using three dimen-
sions. This paper further supports the incorporation of autonomy granting to mea-
surement of parenting styles for other ethnic groups.
Parental differences in autonomy granting and demandingness across male and
female children have implications for both research and practice. In the research
domain, it may be relevant to pursue further investigation of these parent expecta-
tions in both a developmental and a cultural context. For example, it may be that
Latino parents expect their girls to mature earlier than boys, so they may have more
expectations for young girls than for boys of the same age. It is very possible that as
culturally informed gender roles are activated across the lifespan, parents shift their
demandingness for boys and girls (e.g., by expecting a boy to obtain a job outside of the
home at an early age). Similarly, higher autonomy granting in boys may be tied to
expectations that boys will be heads of household and, as such, must practice a skill set
that involves active participation in household rules and activities (e.g., Guilamo-
Ramos et al., 2007). The importance of gender in differential parenting behaviors is
strongly documented across developmental stages (e.g., Joussemet et al., 2008; McKee
et al., 2007). The inclusion of fathers in the present study was a strength, and allowed
for the examination of parental style differences across fathers and mothers. The
similarity in degree of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting across fathers
and mothers in their interactions with their child is of great interest. It suggests that
interventions targeted at parents can be equally applicable for fathers and mothers
and may need to directly address parents’ differential expectations for male and
female children.
Existing research has documented that parenting is a central task in the lives of
Latino parents (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). Supporting Latino parents in having
success as they navigate parentingFan already tremendous taskFin a context
of adversity (see Parra-Cardona et al., 2008) is of critical importance to service

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

208 / FAMILY PROCESS

providers. Family therapists also have a tremendous task in supporting Latino fam-
ilies given the dearth of information available to support the tailoring of family in-
terventions for cultural context. There is a need for further publication of clinical and
research findings with Latino families. In addition to the replication (e.g., other ethnic
groups) and extension (e.g., prediction to child outcomes) of these findings, it would be
of interest to conduct more complex examinations of parenting styles and how they
relate to broader cultural socialization, including cultural values. Future research
may also explore the distinction between supportive and nonsupportive demanding-
ness. The present findings suggest that these may be ends of one ‘‘demandingness’’
continuum; however, they could also be conceptualized separately into ‘‘appropriate
expectations’’ and ‘‘harsh parenting’’ constructs. Finally, that parental expressions of
warmth were equal across genders, but differed for boys and girls on demandingness
and autonomy granting, has implications for both future basic research and inter-
vention development.

REFERENCES
Barber, B. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation and
autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5–11.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 37, 887–907.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today
and tomorrow (pp. 349–378). San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks, R. Lerner, &
A.C. Peterson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 758–772). New York: Garland.
Baumrind, D. (1993). The average respectable environment is not good enough: A response to
Scarr. Child Development, 64, 1299–1317.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405–414.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, B.M. (1984). The HOME inventory and family demographics.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 315–320.
Broderick, P.C., & Blewitt, P. (2003). The life span: Human development for helping profes-
sionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Carlson, C., Uppal, S., & Prosser, E.C. (2000). Ethnic differences in processes contributing to
the self-esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 44–67.
Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-
ences, 17, 275–304.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
DeGarmo, D.S., & Forgatch, M.S. (2005). Early development of delinquency within divorced
families: Evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science, 8,
229–239.
Domenech Rodrı́guez, M., Rodrı́guez, J., & Davis, M.R. (2006). Recruitment of first generation
Latinos in a rural community: The essential nature of personal contact. Family Process, 45,
87–100.
Domenech Rodrı́guez, M., & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing culturally appropriate evidence
based treatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E.
Wieling (Eds.), Voices of color: First person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 313–
333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

www.FamilyProcess.org
DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 209
Dornbush, S.M., Ritter, L.P., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, F.D., & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–
1257.
Fagan, J. (2000). African American and Puerto Rican American parenting styles, parental in-
volvement, and Head Start children’s social competence. Mcrill – Palmer Quarterly, 46, 592–
612.
Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N. (2007).
Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work, 52, 17–30.
Hammer, T.J., & Turner, P.H. (1990). Parenting in contemporary society. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hasan, N., & Power, T.G. (2002). Optimism and pessimism in children: A study of parenting
correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 185–191.
Ingoldsby, B., Schvaneveldt, P., Supple, A., & Bush, K. (2003). The relationship between par-
enting behaviors and adolescent achievement and self-efficacy in Chile and Ecuador. Mar-
riage & Family Review, 35, 139–159.
Jackson, C., Henricksen, L., & Vangie, A.F. (1998). The Authoritative Parenting Index: Pre-
dicting health risk behaviors among children and adolescents. Health Education & Behavior,
25, 319–337.
Joussemet, M., Vitaro, F., Barker, E.D., Cote, S., Nagin, D.S., Zoccolillo, M., et al. (2008).
Controlling parenting and physical aggression during elementary school. Child Development,
79, 411–425.
Julian, T.W., McKenny, P.C., & Mckelvey, M.W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting:
Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family
Relations Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 30–37.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A.B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and
attachment to mothers in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 27, 153–175.
Kazdin, A.E. (2005). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and
antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kotchick, B.A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the
contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11,
255–269.
Lamborn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Patterns of competence
and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, neglectful
families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1076.
Lindahl, K.M., & Malik, N.M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes, and boys’ externalizing
behavior in Hispanic American and European American families. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 28, 12–24.
Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization within the context of the family: Parent–
child interaction. In P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology;
Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (4th ed, pp. 1–101). New York:
Wiley.
McKee, L., Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A.L., Forehand, R., Massari, C., et al. (2007). Harsh
discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal
of Family Violence, 22, 187–196.
Park, H.S., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and aca-
demic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International, 23, 386–305.
Parra-Cardona, J.R., Córdova, Jr., D., Holtrop, K., Villarruel, F.A., & Wieling, E. (2008). Shared
ancestry, evolving stories: Similar and contrasting life experiences described by foreign-born
and U.S. born Latino parents. Family Process, 47, 157–172.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

210 / FAMILY PROCESS

Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J.L., Dent, C.W., & Play, B.R. (1996). Parenting style and ado-
lescent supressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES
differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289–305.
Reiss, D., Hetherington, E.M., Polmin, R., Howe, G.W., Simmens, S.J., & Henderson, S.J.
(1995). Genetic questions for environmental studies: Differential parenting and psychopa-
thology in adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 925–936.
Schwartz, S.J., Mason, C.A., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2008). Effects of family functioning
and identity confusion on substance use and sexual behavior in Hispanic immigrant early
adolescents. Identity, 8, 104–124.
Shelton, K.K., Frick, P.J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of
elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–329.
Steele, R.C., Nesbitt-Daly, J.S., Daniel, R.S., & Forehand, R. (2005). Factor structure of the
Parenting Scale in a low-income African American sample. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 14, 535–549.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S.M., & Brown, B.B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Darling, N., Mounts, N.S., & Dournbush, S.M. (1994). Overtime
changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, D.S., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and en-
couragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.
Stewart, S.M., & Bond, M.H. (2002). A critical look at parenting research from the mainstream:
Problems uncovered while adapting Western research to non-Western cultures. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 379–392.
Stewart, S.M., Bond, M.H., McBride-Chang, C., Fielding, R., Deeds, O., & Westrick, J. (1998).
Parent and adolescent contributors to teenage misconduct in western and Asian high school
students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 847–869.
Tam, V.C.W., & Lam, R.S.Y. (2003). A cultural exploration based on structured observation
methods in Hong Kong. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 45–61.
Vega, W.A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 52, 1015–1024.

www.FamilyProcess.org