Parenting style

Dr. Simon Moss

Overview
Parents vary dramatically on the extent to which they are overprotective or
responsive to the needs and concerned of their children. These parental
practices can significantly affect the temperament, relationships, personality,
motivation, and progress of their children, and these effects can persist
throughout life.

For example, compared to individuals whose parents were inconsistent--

occasionally supportive and warm, but sometimes neglectful, critical, and
unfair-individuals whose parents were almost always supportive, warm, and
responsive to their needs and concerns are less sensitive to rejection. They are
also more inclined to perceive themselves as likeable and competent (see
Wearden, Peters, Berry, Barrowclough, & Liversidge, 2008).

Principal styles of parenting

Authoritative parenting
Baumrind (1978) distinguished four of the key styles of parenting, especially
applicable to young children: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and
neglectful (see also Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).
Authoritative parenting, as characterized by Baumrind (1978), are often
demanding, manifesting elevated expectations and standards for their children
and encouraging compliance with their rules and directives. Nevertheless, they
encourage discussion about these rules as well as independence, autonomy and
freedom, inviting children to think about their own lives and behavior. As a
consequence, they punishments are measured, consistent, and justified
explicitly, rather than unpredictable, erratic, and unfounded.

The parents also exhibit a warmth and responsive manner. That is, the parents
are sensitive to the needs and concerns of their children and forgiving when
standards are not fulfilled.

This balance of direction, independence, and sensitivity is assumed to enhance

the progress and independence of their children. The children show initiative
and confidence.

Authoritarian parenting
Like authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting also coincides with
expectations of compliance with firm rules and high standards. However, in
contrast to authoritative parenting, authoritarian parents discourage dialogues
about these rules, exhibiting rigidity and inflexibility. They do not justify the
rules with reason or argument. In addition, these parents are not responsive to
the needs and concerns of their children.

Their children as a consequence might not show initiative, independence, or

curiosity. The capacity of these children to reach suitable decisions in social
settings might also be impaired-and instead they might merely follow social
norms. These problems might represent limited opportunities to choose which
behaviors they would like to pursue early in life. Rebellion might also be
common in these children.

Permissive parenting
Permissive parents are not demanding and do not expect compliance with
stringent rules or elevated standards. These parents, however, are warm and
responsible, usually sensitive to the needs and concerns of their children. Often,
these parents might be driven by a need to be liked by their children.

These children, purportedly, are often impulsive because they do not develop
the capacity to regulate their behavior effectively, especially in social
relationships. These children are also more likely than peers to be victimized at
school. Later, they might exhibit misconduct. Unlike children whose parents are
authoritarian, children whose parents are permissive later develop solid
relationships with these parents.

Neglectful parenting
Neglect parents are also not demanding, expecting limited compliance with
rules and directives. Nevertheless, unlike permissive parents, they are also
neglectful and rejecting rather than warm and responsive, insensitive to the
concerns and needs of their children. They often seem disengaged from the
lives of their children, focused instead on their own lives.

Their attachment style with their parents is, supposedly, characterized by

confusion, because they cannot develop a consistent means to cope with
neglect. Other social relationships might also be disrupted later in life. They also
often engage in risky behavior.

Dimensions
In contrast to the categorization of parenting styles into four classes, some
scholars characterize these practices with continuous dimensions. Parker,
Tupling, and Brown (1979), for example, developed a measure that comprises
two facets: the extent to which parents are responsive and the degree to
parents are overprotective.

These two dimensions are sometimes used to develop other classes of parental
style. Affectionless control represents low care and high overprotection, for
example. Affectionate control represents high care and high overprotection.
Weak bonding represents low care and low overprotection, somewhat similar to
neglectful parenting. Optimal bonding represents high care and low
overprotection (see Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979).

Many scholars also distinguish between facets of overprotection or control.

Aunola and Nurmi (2004), for example, discriminate between behavioral
control, which entails overt actions to maintain rules, and psychological control,
in which parents appeal to guilt and disappointment.

Most of the dimensions that differentiate parenting styles can be divided into
three main factors. The first factor is level of warmth and caring, which reflects
the extent to which parents respond rapidly and appropriately to support the
needs of their children. The second factor relates to level of structure, which
represents the degree to which parents introduce clear expectations. The third
factor is level of intrusion, in which parents restrict rather than grant autonomy
and choice. Typically, high levels of warmth and structure but low levels of
intrusion are considered optimal (for a discussion, see Prinze, Stams, Dekovic,
Reijintjes, & Belsky, 2009).

According to Baumrind (1966, 1967), the two main dimensions of parenting--

restrictiveness or overprotection and nurturance or care--can be mapped onto
the four style of parenting. For example, authoritative parenting entails, at least
moderately, high level of restrictiveness as wel as high levels of nurturance.
Authoritarian parenting entails high restrictiveness but low nurturance.
Permissive parenting entails low restrictiveness and high nurturance. And
neglectful parenting, a concept developed later (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983),
entails low restrictiveness and low nurturance.

Consequences of parenting style

Attachment to parents or partners in childhood
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) evaluated the behavior of mothers
in the Strange situation on a series of scales, such as level of sensitivity,
acceptance, cooperation, and accessibility. These scales were positively
correlated with attachment security. In particular, some mothers seemed
especially sensitive to the subtle concerns and signals of their children and then
respond promptly and appropriately. The children of these mothers were
particularly secure: When the mother returned to the room, the child
approached her eagerly, but then was willing to explore the room confidently
soon afterwards.

This study has been replicated. Nevertheless, some studies demonstrated only
modest, rather than pronounced, associations between the sensitivity of
mothers and the attachment style of their children (for reviews, see Goldsmith
& Alansky, 1987). Methodological weaknesses, such as different
conceptualizations of sensitivity, could explain this variation (Wolff & van
IJzendoorn, 2010).

To understand the association between the behavior of mothers and the

attachment style of children, Wolff and van IJzendoorn (1997) conducted a
meta-analysis. The first phase of this meta-analysis was to characterize the
various maternal behaviors. A sample of 27 experts in this field evaluated the
perceived similarity between 55 ratings, corresponding to four sets of
constructs. First, some of the constructs reflected sensitivity, relating to
awareness of signals and prompt as well as appropriate responses. Second,
some constructs referred to contiguity of responses, which describes whether
the responses were prompt regardless of whether they were appropriate. Third,
some constructs referred to the quality and quantity of physical responses.
Finally, some constructs related to whether or not the mother was intrusive or
cooperative. Experts rated these 15 rating scales into sets of similar concepts

Homogeneity analysis using alternating least squares was undertaken to

uncover the dimensions that underpin these 55 rating scales. This technique
first uncovered 5 clusters of rating scales including synchrony, reflecting
whether interactions were mutual and reciprocal, positive mutuality,
representing the number of times mothers and children attend to the same
activity, emotional support, concerning the degree to which the mother was
attentive and supportive of the efforts of their children, positive attitude,
representing warmth and delight, as well as stimulation, representing
encouragement.

Next, Wolff and van IJzendoorn (1997) subjected past studies that have
examined similar concepts to a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that
all five clusters--synchrony, mutuality, support, attitude, and stimulation--were
positively associated with secure attachment. Effect sizes, however, were
moderate for synchrony and mutuality but lower for support, attitude, and
stimulation. In addition, the association between sensitivity and secure
attachment was moderately associated.

Attachment to parents or partners in adulthood

The beliefs and behaviour of individuals can partly be predicted from their
experiences with their parents. In particular, if their parents were occasionally
supportive and warm, but sometimes neglectful, critical, and unfair-and thus
erratic and inconsistent-these individuals overreact to subtle cues. For example,
these individuals will recognize each time one of their colleagues shows even
mild disappointment. In response, they become very upset, because they, in
essence, unconsciously relive all the criticisms and punishment they received
from their parents. Hence, they become very sensitive to minor cues of
rejection, often concerned they will be neglected by friends and colleagues.
They ascribe this rejection to themselves, not to other individuals, and thus feel
ashamed and unconfident (Wearden, Peters, Berry, Barrowclough, & Liversidge,
2008).

Psychopathy and attachment

Psychopathy refers to a constellation of behaviors that can include the tendency
of individuals to respond impulsively and aggressively under stress or to behave
callously and without any empathy or concern towards other people
(see measures of psychopathy). Recent research indicates that parenting style
can affect the attachment style of individuals, and this attachment style can
shape the level of psychopathy.

To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Craig, Gray, and Snowden (2013), the
participants were mainly undergraduate students, postgraduate students, or
staff of a university. They completed the parental bonding instrument, to gauge
the extent to which their parents had been warm or overprotective during their
first 16 years of life. In addition, they completed the Experiences in Close
Relationship Scale to measure the degree to which they feel they may be
rejected or abandoned, called anxious attachment, and the extent to which they
like to detach themselves from close relationships, called avoidant attachment.
Finally, participants completed a measure of psychopathy that measures three
facets: disinhibition, meanness, and boldness.

Mediation analysis showed that low maternal care and paternal care were
associated with anxious attachment, and this anxious attachment was positively
associated with disinhibition but negatively associated with boldness.
Furthermore, low levels of maternal care were associated with avoidant
attachment, and this avoidant attachment was positively associated with
disinhibition as well.

Presumably, when parents are neither warm nor affectionate, individuals do not
feel they will be supported when problems unfold. They are, therefore, more
sensitive to stressful events, such as rejection, manifesting as anxious
attachment. Because of this belief they may be rejected rather than supported,
they overreact to adversities, undermining their capacity to regulate emotions,
culminating in impulsive behavior in stressful circumstances. Yet, because they
feel they may be rejected, they do not feel empowered in social settings,
diminishing boldness.
In addition, when mothers are neither warm nor affectionate, individuals learn
to depend on their own capabilities to protect themselves, manifesting as
avoidant attachment. This avoidant attachment may compromise the motivation
of individuals to please anyone else, manifesting as impulsive behavior.

Maternal overprotection was not associated with either attachment style or

psychopathy. In contrast, the association between paternal overprotection and
psychopathy is complex: Paternal overprotection was positively associated with
anxious attachment as well as directly and positively related to disinhibition.
Paternal overprotection or intrusion may compromise the capacity of individuals
to regulate negative emotions themselves, undermining self-control but also
promoting a reliance on other people and thus anxious attachment.

Emotional regulation versus emotional sensitivity

Raby et al. (2012) showed that parenting style towards infants affects
emotional regulation, whereas specific genes tend to shape emotional
sensitivity. In this study, to assess maternal parenting style, mothers and their
children were observed during feeding and play. The extent to which the
mothers were sensitive to the cues of their infants and then responded promptly
and suitably was assessed. In addition, the degree to which the mothers
adapted their own behavior to align with the preferences of their infant,
facilitating autonomy, and called cooperation, was also evaluated. Furthermore,
variation in the 5-HTTLPR gene--related to serotinergic activity and emotional
sensitivity--was determined as well. Finally, the infants were exposed to the
Strange Situation: a paradigm in which the mother leaves and then returns
later.

In infants who were 12 months in age, only the gene predicted the level of
distress. That is, infants with the short allele of this gene exhibited more
distress than other infants when the mother left, regardless of parenting style,
reflecting emotional sensitivity. This association, however, was not significant in
infants that were 18 months of age.

In contrast, when mothers were sensitive and cooperative, their infants still
showed distress but were pacified quickly when the mother returned, reflecting
intact emotional regulation. Indeed, these infants were especially likely to
approach their parents excitedly. Whether this relationship was moderated by
distress demands more research.

Personality
Even the personality of individuals is affected by parental style. Children whose
parents were not authoritative, for example, are more inclined to demonstrate a
decline in the extent to which they are conscientious (e.g., Heaven & Ciarrochi,
2008).

Likewise, in a meta-analysis, Khaleque and Rohner (2012) showed that parental

acceptance affected the personality of their offspring. Specifically, acceptance
was positively associated with feelings of independence, self-esteem, self-
adequacy, emotional responsiveness, and emotional stability as well as
inversely related to aggression. Similarly, adults who remember their parents as
accepting were also more likely to exhibit these traits. These findings are
consistent with the parental acceptance rejection theory, in which children, after
they are rejected, yearn for the support they are not granted but often become
unresponsive and independent to protect themselves. They begin to perceive
themselves as they assume their parents regard them, consistent with symbolic
interaction theory (Cooley, 1902& Mead, 1934)--unworthy of love and therefore
worthless.

Motivation
Parenting style can also affect the motivation of individuals. To illustrate, when
parents are overprotective, their children are more likely to engage in self
handicapping (e.g., Want & Kleitman, 2006). For example, before an exam,
they might not study at all, consume alcohol, and attend parties late at night-
virtually providing an excuse for inadequate performance.

Overprotective parents can also foster a prevention focus in their children. If

parents are very protective and authoritarian, their children become vigilant,
always striving to fulfill their duties and minimize shortfalls. As a consequence,
the principal motivation of these children is to follow rules and satisfy
obligations-not pursue aspirations or engage in risky behavior-called a
prevention focus (Keller, 2008).

If parents are more authoritative not authoritarian, the children become more
receptive to risk. That is, these children strive to fulfill aspirations, rather than
attempt to minimize shortfalls. As a consequence, they are often more creative
and original, but less vigilant and precise (Keller, 2008).

Aggression
As Ember and Ember (1994) showed, in societies in which parents show limited
levels of warmth, rates of homicide are elevated. Similarly, in societies in which
parents are often cold and rejecting rather than warm and accepting,
aggression was elevated in both children and adults (Rohner, 1975).
Conceivably, according to Rohner (1986), when parents adopt this style, a
profound need to receive support and praise, ubiquitous in children, is not
fulfilled, provoking frustration and ultimately aggression.
Interestingly, when societies are stratified, and distinct cultures remain isolated
from one another, parents are more cold and rejecting (Rohner, 1975).
Similarly, sedentary life styles are also associated with this parenting style
(Rohner, 1975& for a review, see Bond, 2004).

Authoritarian behavior in parents can also evoke hostile attitudes and

aggressive acts in their children. Gilani and Altaf (2005), for example, showed
that authoritarian parenting was positively related to extremist attitudes in their
adolescent offspring.

Response to speech and autism spectrum disorder

Many studies indicate that parents should be responsive to the cues of their
child. Fewer studies, however, characterize this capacity precisely. In contrast,
Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014) characterize one key feature
of responsive parents: These parents tend to be more responsive to
vocalizations in their children that relate to speech. Furthermore, if parents are
responsive to speech vocalizations in particular, the children become more likely
to vocalize speech sounds than other sounds.

According to Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014), if this

sequence of events is impeded because parents do not respond strongly to
vocal cues, their children may be more likely to develop autism. That is, the
children do not learn that speech vocalizations will attract attention, diminishing
the likelihood they will speak to communicate.

Indeed, Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014) conducted a study

that attests to this possibility. In this study, the researchers examined
naturalistic interactions between parents and their children, aged between 8
and 48 months. A portion of the children had been diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder.

Some key results emerged. In the children who were not diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder, adults were more likely to respond within one second to
vocalizations that entailed speech, including words, babble, or singing rather
than laughing, crying, burping, and coughing. In addition, if one speech
vocalization attracted a response within one second, the next vocalization of
children was more likely to entail speech as well. In children with autism
spectrum disorder, however, parents were not as inclined to respond to speech
rather than others sounds. And the vocalizations of their children entailed less
speech. Yet, like with the other children, if parents had responded to speech,
children diagnosed with autism were also more likely to vocalize speech during
the next interaction. This sequence of events, therefore, is observed in children
with autism as well.
Sexual risk taking
As many studies indicate, when fathers are absent, their daughters are more
likely to engage in promiscuous and sexually risky behaviours. Indeed, DelPriore
and Hill (2013) verified the direction of causality: Cues that prime thoughts
about the absence of fathers increased the likelihood that women would endorse
sexually risky behaviors, such as intercourse without condoms.

To illustrate, in one study, female undergraduate students wrote about a time in

which their fathers were either absent and unavailable when needed or present
and supportive when needed. Next, they received a series of word stems, like -
A K - D, each of which could be completed with either a sexual word or a non-
sexual word. If participants had written about a time their father was absent,
they were more likely to recognize the sexual alternatives. This finding indicates
that cues intended to prime father absence increased the accessibility of sexual
thoughts.

Subsequent studies confirmed, clarified, and extended these findings. For

example, primes that cue father absence were shown to increase the likelihood
that female participants would endorse statements like "Sex without love is OK"
and could name more men with whom they would be willing to engage in sex.
Absent friends, rather than absent fathers however, did not generate the same
pattern of results. Likewise, absent fathers did not evoke positive attitudes to
risky behaviors that were not related to sex, such as eating junk food.

This pattern of observations is consistent with parental investment theory (e.g.,

Ellis, 2004). According to this theory, if fathers are absent during a sensitive
period of development in their children, they signify to their daughters that men
are often unavailable. Consequently, these daughters develop the assumption
that investment in partners is ineffective. Instead, they seek transient rather
than enduring relationships.

This pattern of observations cannot be as readily ascribed to psychosocial

acceleration theory (Belsky et al., 1991). According to this theory, if individuals
are reared in harsh, unpredictable conditions, they learn to engage in behaviors
that generate immediate benefits rather than future benefits. The absence of
fathers, or other adversities, may thus prompt behaviors that are more
impulsive rather than considered. Yet, in this study, the absence of fathers did
not prompt risky behaviors in general.

Leadership behavior in the future

The behavior of parents can also affect whether or not these children will be
become leaders later in life. In particular, if parents are authoritative--in which
they are supportive but impose consistent rules--their children are likely to
assume leadership roles as they age.

This possibility was uncovered by Avolio, Rotundo, and Walumbwa (2009). In

this study, participants completed questions about the behaviors of their
parents. Some of the questions gauged the degree to which individuals felt their
parents are supportive and involved, such as "I talked about my problems and
experiences with this parent". Other questions gauged the degree to which
individuals felt their parents impose consistent rules and structure, such as
"This parent made it clear to me what he or she wanted me to do and not do".
Finally, several years later, participants indicated whether or not they have
emerged as leaders in various domains, such as work.

If parents demonstrated both involvement and structure, the two key features
of authoritative leadership, their children were likely to become leaders years
later. Perhaps, because they feel supported but certain about how to behave,
these individuals are more willing to trust their initiative rather than strive
vigilantly to please other people.

Performance
The performance of individuals, either at school or at work, also depends on the
practices their parents applied. For example, when mothers are controlling, by
appealing to pride, guilt and disappointment, the mathematics performance of
their children is not proficient-although this association is pronounced only when
these mothers are also affectionate (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). This finding is
important, because usually affection buffers the deleterious effects of
overprotection (Gray & Steinberg, 1999)-which is related to, but distinct from,
psychological control.

Conceivably, such controlling behaviors, coupled with affection, could represent

a manifestation of enmeshment (e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996), which can curb
autonomy and ultimately compromise academic performance. Psychological
control coupled with affection can exacerbate fears of failure, partly because the
children receive conflicting messages, sometimes experiencing the shock that
disappointment can provoke (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Third, this parenting style
might represent emotional tendencies in mothers, who thus do not provide the
rational support that is needed to cultivate academic skills (Aunola & Nurmi,
2004).

Determinants of parental style

Many factors affect the parenting style that individuals adopt. One of the main
determinants is the behavior of their own parents. Nevertheless, temperament,
education, and culture also influence parenting style. To illustrate, authoritarian
parenting is more prevalent in dangerous neighborhoods, often as a means to
prevent risks. Indeed, several studies show that harsher parenting practices
coincide with low socioeconomic status (Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, & Conger,
2008).

As Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijintjes, and Belsky (2009) showed, the parental
style that individuals adopt depends on their personality traits, as represented
by the five factor model. In particular, if individuals demonstrate elevated levels
of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience--personality traits that are usually considered
desirable--they are more inclined to report warmth, in which they respond
rapidly to support the needs of their children, as well as structure, in which they
impose clear expectations. Furthermore, if individuals exhibit agreeableness and
emotional stability, they support rather than restrict autonomy and choice.

Similarly, Metsapelto and Pulkkinen (2003) also argued and showed that
personality in parents affected the style or approaches they adopted to raise
their children. For example, if parents report elevated levels of openness to
experience, they are not as rigid in their expectations. They will, therefore,
grant more latitude to their children and not behave as intrusively.
Furthermore, these parents are often more sensitive to emotions in general.
They are, therefore, more receptive to the needs of their children, manifesting
as warmth. Introversion, however, can sometimes curb this sensitivity, because
the attention of parents might be oriented to their own private thoughts.

Calling to be a parent
Some parents experience a calling to be a parent. That is, they deem parenting
to be central to their identity. They always felt destined to be a parent and
perceive parenting as a central mission or purpose in their life. Their
responsibilities as parents engulf their awareness. Furthermore, they feel
passionate about these responsibilities.

As Coulson, Oades, and Stoyles (2012) showed, when individuals experience

this calling to be a parent they tend to apply more effective parenting styles.
That is, they tend to be authoritative rather than authoritarian or permissive.
They apply fair rules but are not too dogmatic or lenient.

In particular, in this study, parents completed a scale that assesses calling to be

a parent. The scale comprised three factors: the extent to which parenting is
central to their purpose and identity (e.g., "One of the main reasons I am on
earth is to be a parent"), the degree to which parenting responsibilities engulf
their awareness (e.g., "Even when my children are not with me I am thinking
about them"), and the extent to which they feel passionate about these
responsibilities (e.g., "I can't wait to spend time with my children").
All three measures of calling were positively associated with authoritative
parenting. These measures, besides engulfing awareness, were negatively
associated with the other variants of parenting: authoritarian and permissive.
Furthermore, in general, this calling was positively associated with satisfaction
in life and satisfaction with parenting as well as positive affect and meaning in
life.

Attachment style
As Millings, Walsh, Hepper, and O'Brien (2013) showed, the attachment style of
individuals shapes their parenting style. In particular, when parents report
anxious or avoidant attachment styles, in which they are unduly sensitive to
rejection or uncomfortable with intimacy, they are not as responsive to each
other& they dismiss emotions. That is, they are not as physically close with
each other, sensitive to the emotions of their partner, or as willing to assist this
person. This behavior then shapes their parenting style, and they become less
caring towards their children, manifesting as an authoritarian or permissive
rather than authoritative style.

Specifically, in one study, participants, all of whom were parents of young

children, completed the Experiences in Close Relationships Revised scale to
gauge their own attachment styles. In addition, they completed the Caregiving
Questionnaire to gauge the extent to which they are responsive to the needs of
their partner or spouse. Finally, they completed questions that assess their
parenting style.

As structural equation modeling showed, anxious and avoidant attachment

styles in parents were inversely associated with the degree to which they were
responsive to each other. Furthermore, anxious attachment styles was directly
and positively associated with authoritarian and permissive parental styles.
Finally, parents who were not responsive to each other were more likely to
report authoritarian and permissive, rather than authoritative, parental styles.

Presumably, when individuals are concerned about rejection, they monitor their
own behavior closely, diminishing their sensitivity to other people. In contrast, if
uncomfortable with close relationships, individuals shun intimacy. Therefore,
both variants of insecure attachment may inhibit the tendency to care. That is,
the caregiving system is inhibited. When this system is inhibited, parents may
not be as responsive to the needs of their children, diminishing support and
involvement, vital to authoritative parenting. Furthermore, if parents exhibited
anxious attachment, their fixation with themselves could also undermine this
support and involvement.

Reminders of threat or terrorism

After parents are reminded of terrorist incidents, they become more likely to
embrace or adopt an authoritarian parenting style. For example, in one study,
conducted by Fischer, Fischer, Frey, Such, Smyth, Tester, and Kastenmuller
(2013), participants were exposed to pictures or newspaper articles. The
pictures depicted either the consequences of terrorist attacks or peaceful
scenes, such as flowers. The newspaper articles indicated that terrorist attacks
are either impending or unlikely. Participants then specified the degree to which
they feel various emotions. Finally, these individuals answered questions that
gauge their attitudes towards various parental practices, such as "Sometimes I
punish my child rather harshly for only little norm violations" and "Children
should obey older people". Exposure to reminders of terrorism, in the context of
pictures or newspaper articles, did not affect mood but did increase the
likelihood these parents would endorse authoritarian practices.

A second study replicated these findings with a sample of actual parents. A final
study showed that reminders of terrorism prompted authoritarian behaviour in
parents towards their children. That is, after they were exposed to reminders of
terrorism, parents displayed more negative emotions towards their child while
they participated in a game.

These findings are consistent with threat to social order theory (Rucker,
Polifroni, Tetlock, & Scott, 2004), derived from system justification theory,
mortality salience, control restoration effects, and personal uncertainty
management theory. In particular, when social order may be threatened,
individuals feel compelled to restore this order. They attempt to control the
environment, manifesting as a range of behaviors, such as a preference towards
status quo, severe punishment of violations, and authoritarian practices.

Working memory
According to Deater-Deckard, Sewell, Petrill, and Thompson (2010), working
memory capacity can also enhance parental style. Specifically, when the
working memory of individuals is extensive, they can more readily form and
implement intentions to override their natural inclinations. They can reappraise
demanding contexts, such as disobedient children, curbing their frustration,
irritation, or anxiety (e.g., Ochsner & Gross, 2005. Their negative emotions
dissipate. They can, therefore, behave more thoughtfully and supportively.

Deater-Deckard, Sewell, Petrill, and Thompson (2010) conducted a study to

substantiate these arguments. In this study, the behavior of 216 mothers of
twins was examined. Each twin participated in two challenging tasks: drawing
pictures with an Etch a Sketch and maneuvering a marble through a tilting
maze box.

As each child completed these tasks, the behavior of mothers and children were
monitored carefully. The extent to which the mothers exhibited anger,
frustration, and annoyance was assessed. Furthermore, the degree to which the
children seemed disobedient and distressed rather than persistent and
compliant was also rated. Finally, the working memory of mothers was
assessed: In particular, the number of digits they could recall was evaluated,
using the WAIS.

Mothers who exhibited an impaired working memory directed appreciably more

negative emotions to the child who was more disobedient and distressed.
Mothers who exhibited an extensive working memory did not always direct their
negative emotions to the child who was more disobedient and distressed& these
mothers could more readily regulate their negative emotions.

Self-control
Many studies have shown that restrictive parenting tends to diminish self-
control (for a review, see Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2013). That is, if adolescents
perceive their parents as restrictive, they often yield to temptations and engage
in risky, destructive, or antisocial behaviors.

According to Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013), in the past, scholars have often
assumed that restrictive parents diminish any sense of choice in their children.
Consequently, the children do not internalize the moral norms and, therefore,
behave immorally. But, this account does not align to the finding that restrictive
parents increase feelings of shame in their children--and this shame implies that
moral norms have been internalized.

Instead, Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013) offered another account to explain

the impact of restrictive parents. Specifically, when parents are nurturing,
children are rewarded when they engage in desired behaviors, such as helping
strangers. These children, therefore, will become more attuned to the behaviors
they should undertake to attract rewards. In contrast, when parents are
restrictive, children are punished whenever they engage in undesired behaviors,
such as shouting too loudly. These children will become more attuned to the
behaviors they should avoid. That is, "don'ts" become more salient than "dos".

Therefore, if parents are restrictive, the attention of children is often directed to

temptations they should avoid. These temptations become very salient.
Therefore, consistent with the motivational inference model (Denzler, Forster,
Liberman, & Rozenman, 2010), the children infer they must really desire these
temptations. Their capacity to resist these temptations diminishes, and self-
control plummets.

Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013) conducted a series of studies to validate this

account. The first study showed that undergraduate students who perceived
their parents as restrictive, often scolding and punishing their children, were
more sensitive to temptations that should be avoided rather than desirable
behaviors that should be enacted. When reading scenarios about temptations,
these students felt the protagonist must resist these behaviors. When reading
scenarios about desirable behaviors, such as the possibility of helping someone,
they were not as concerned about the behavior or actions of the protagonist.
This pattern of observations was observed only if participants answered
questions about whether their parents were restrictive before answering
questions about whether their parents were nurturing& presumably, this
sequence of questions primed the notion of restrictiveness more strongly.

The second study showed that people who perceived their parents as restrictive
did perceive a set of temptations, such as driving drunk, skipping class, driving
recklessly, stealing, experimenting with drugs, and cheating on exams, as more
tempting. The final study showed that people who perceived their parents as
restrictive, if primed to consider temptations they should avoid, performed less
effectively on a Stroop task. That is, the combination of restrictive parents and
awareness of temptations seemed to deplete mental energy and, therefore,
compromise performance on a task that demands concentration.

Complications
Several complications to this issue of parenting style still need to be resolved.
First, genetics, rather than parenting style, might underpin some of the
purported effects of parenting behavior. Harsh parents, for example, might
produce harsh children, because of genetic underpinnings.

Second, recent evidence indicates the behavior and temperament of children

affects the styles and practices of parents. Hence, some of the observed
relationships between parental style and childhood behavior could be ascribed
to this mechanism (e.g., Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003).

Indeed, scholars now examine the interaction between the temperament of

children and the behavior of parents. From the perspective of Rubin, Burgess,
Kennedy, and Stewart (2003), for example, when infants are difficult to soothe,
and instead are irritable, the capacity of parents to offer a supportive
environment is compromised, especially if these parents themselves are
stressed because of difficulties in their life or exhibit an insensitive disposition.
As a consequence, the child becomes increasingly likely to perceive the other
figures in their life as unpredictable and unavailable. This temperament in the
children, coupled with the corresponding distrust, can undermine the capacity to
form social relationships in the future.

Some longitudinal studies, however, showed that parental style affected the
performance of children but not vice versa (e.g., Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Hence,
parenting style does influence childhood behavior or characteristics, at least in
some settings.
Measures of parenting style
Parental bonding instrument
The parental bonding instrument, or PBI, was validated by Parker, Tupling, and
Brown (1979)--and is usually completed by the children (for related scales, see
Parker, Roussos, Hadzi-Pavlovic, Mitchell, Wilhelm, & Austin, 1997). This
instrument comprises 25 items, which relate to perceptions and beliefs about
the behavior of their parents when the respondents were 16 or younger.
Participants usually complete the instrument twice: once to rate their mother
and also to rate their father.

The instrument comprises two sets of items. The first set reflect the extent to
which parents are caring, warm, affectionate, empathic, and responsive rather
than cold, indifferent, rejecting, and unresponsive, with items like " ...seemed
emotionally cold to me" (reverse scored). The second set of items reflects the
degree to which parents are overprotective, intrusive, and controlling rather
than detached, fostering independence, such as "... was overprotective of me".

The psychometric properties of this instrument are acceptable. For example,

parenting style, as represented by the PBI, align with reports from witnesses,
independent observers, and twins (see Parker, 1989& Parker & Lipscombe,
1981). Furthermore, Parker (1989) showed that responses are unrelated to the
mood state of respondents.

Subsequently, Murphy, Brewin, and Silka (1997) subjected the responses to this
instrument to a factor analysis. Three rather than two factors emerged. In
particular, overprotection was divided into two distinct factors: denial of
psychological autonomy and encouragement of behavioral freedom.

Parental care style questionnaire

The PCSQ, formulated by Hazan and Shaver (1986), is designed to assess the
extent to which parents are caring. The respondents read three paragraphs,
each describing one style: warm and responsive& rejecting and not respective&
and ambivalent or inconsistent. Respondents rate the extent to which their
parents demonstrate the depicted characteristics, on a 7 point scale, once for
their month and once for their father.

Parental Authority Questionnaire

Buri (1991& see also Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) developed the
parental authority questionnaire, which comprises 30 items are assesses the
extent to which parents are authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative, as
defined by Baumrind (1971). For example, to measure an authoritative style, a
typical item is "My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take
whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable".

Child Rearing Practices Report

The CRPR, developed by Roberts, Block, and Block (1984), comprises 28 items-
and is usually completed by the parents. This questionnaire assesses the extent
to which parents show affection, encourage independence, punish children,
control by invoking guilt, and provide rational guidance. Items include "I believe
that praise is more effective than punishment", "If my child misbehaves, I
usually punish him or her", "I believe scolding may be helpful", "I often joke
with my child", "It is important that children obey their parents", and "I express
my affection by hugging and holding my child". Parents specify the extent to
which these descriptions apply.

Aunola and Nurmi (2004) subjected these items to a factor analysis. They
uncovered three factors: affection, behavioral control-such as clear expectations
and valuing obedience-and psychological control, appealing to pride and guilt.
The test-retest correlations ranged between .75 and .78 for affection, between .
57 and .62 for behavioral control, and between .69 and .72 for psychological
control. Behavioral control was positively, but modestly, related to each other.

The parenting scale

The parenting scale, developed by Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker (1993),
comprises 30 items that assess the practices parents use to discipline their
children. Three factors have emerged: over-reactivity, laxness, and verbosity
(Arnold et al., 1993). Cronbach's alpha is .83, .82, and .63 for these three
subscales respectively. Prinzie, Onghena, and Hellinckx (2007) uncovered only
two factors: over-reactivity and laxness.

References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1974). Infant-mother
attachment and social development: "Socialization" as a product of reciprocal
responsiveness to signals. In M. P. M.Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child
into a social world (pp. 99-135). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C. Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of

attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situatin. Hillsdale, NJ :
Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory

behavior of one-year-olds in a Strange Situation. In B. M.Foss (Ed.),
Determinants of infant behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 11-136). London: Methuen.
Arnold, D.S., O'Leary, S.G., Wolff, L.S., & Acker, M.M. (1993). The Parenting
Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting and discipline
situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144.

Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of
psychological control on a child's mathematical performance. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 965-978

Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents'
achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222.

Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. E. (2009). Early life experiences as
determinants of leadership role occupancy: The importance of parental influence
and rule breaking behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 329-342.

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal

characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 10, 17-31

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected

construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319

Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment:

Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58, 433-441.

Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations between parental
psychological control and behavioral control and youth internalized and
externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child

behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of

preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in

children. Youth and Society, 9, 238-276.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent

competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. Buri,
J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57, 110-119.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience,
interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory
of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647-670. doi:10.2307/1131166

Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression--from context to

coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62-78.

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:

Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child
Development, 65, 1111-1119.

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style

for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72,
1832-1843.

Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian
parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese
children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner's.

Coulson, J. C., Oades, L. G., & Stoyles, G. J. (2012). Parents' subjective sense
of calling in childrearing: Measurement, development and initial
findings. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 83-94. doi:
10.1080/17439760.2011.633547

Craig, R. L., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2013). Recalled parental bonding,
current attachment, and the triarchic conceptualisation of
psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 345-350. doi: /
10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.012

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative

model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

Deater-Deckard, K., Sewell, M. D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2010).

Maternal working memory and reactive negativity in parenting. Psychological
Science, 21, 75-79.

DelPriore, D. J., & Hill, S. E. (2013). The effects of paternal disengagement on

women's sexual decision making: an experimental approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 234-246. doi: 10.1037/a0032784
Denzler, M., Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Rozenman, M. (2010). Aggressive,
funny, and thirsty: A motivational inference model (MIMO) approach to
behavioral rebound. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1385-
1396. doi:10.1177/0146167210382663

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M.
J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: An integrated life

history approach. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 920-958. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.130.6.920

Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1994). War, socialization, and interpersonal

violence: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 620-646.

Fischer, P., Fischer, J., Frey, D., Such, M., Smyth, M., Tester, M., &
Kastenmuller, A. (2013). Causal evidence that terrorism salience increases
authoritarian parenting practices. Social Psychology, 41, 246-254. doi:
10.1027/1864-9335/a000033

Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Parental style and child bullying and victimization

experiences at school. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 213-227

Gilani, N., & Altaf, R. (2005). Tendencies of extremism among adolescents and
post-adolescents in relation to parenting style. Pakistan Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 3, 27-40.

Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L.
(1997). Parenting styles, adolescents' attributions, and educational outcomes in
nine heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.

Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant predictors of

attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55, 805-816.

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting:

Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 574-587.

Harris, J. R. (2000). The outcome of parenting: What we really know? Journal

of Personality, 68, 625-637.

Haslam, M., Mountford, V., Meyer, C., & Waller, G. (2008). Invalidating
childhood environments in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Eating Behaviors, 9,
313-318
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualised as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-523.

Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental styles, conscientiousness, and

academic performance in high school: A three-wave longitudinal
study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 451-461.

Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Mak, A. (2004). The impact of adolescent and
parental characteristics on adolescent levels of delinquency and
depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 173-185.

Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R. C., Salsedo, O., Gobioff, G. R., &
Gadd, R. (2000). The relationship between parenting style and children's
adjustment: The parents' perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
9, 231-245.

Keller, J. (2008). On the development of regulatory focus: The role of parenting

styles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 354-364.

Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relationships
with parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J.
Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6. Developmental psychology (pp.
395-419). New York: Wiley.

Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2012). Transnational relations between

perceived parental acceptance and personality dispositions of children and
adults: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
16, 103-115. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418986

Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic
achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A

historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.

Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and

misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.

McBride-Chang, C., & Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong

Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 159, 421-436.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press

Meins, M., Jones, S. R., Fernyhough, C., Hurndall, S., & Koronis, P. (2008).
Attachment dimensions and schizotypy in a non-clinical sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, 1000-1011.

Metsapelto, R., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting:

Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative
factors.European Journal of Personality, 17, 59-78.

Miller, J. M., Diiorio, C., & Dudley, W. (2002). Parenting style and adolescent's
reaction to conflict: Is there a relationship? Journal of Adolescent Health, 31,
463-468.

Millings, A., Walsh, J., Hepper, E., & O'Brien, M. (2013). Good partner, good
parent: Responsiveness mediates the link between romantic attachment and
parenting style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 170-180.
doi:10.1177/0146167212468333

Murphy, E., Brewin, C. R., & Silka, L. (1997). The assessment of parenting
using the parental bonding instrument: Two or three factors. Psychological
Medicine, 27, 333-342.

Parker, G. (1983). Parental overprotection: A risk factor in psychosocial

development. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Parker, G. (1990). The parental bonding instrument: A decade of

research. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 25, 281-282.

Parker, G., Roussos, J., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Mitchell, P., Wilhelm, K., & Austin,
M. P. (1997) The development of a refined measure of dysfunctional parenting
and assessment of its relevance in patients with affective
disorders. Psychological Medicine, 1997, 27, 1193-1203.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding

instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting,

ecological context, and children's adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal
study. Child Development, 68, 908-923.

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Reexamining the Parenting
Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for
assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-
aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 24-31.
Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Dekovic, M., Reijintjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J.
(2009). The relations between parents' Big Five personality factors and
parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 351-362.

Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and
parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1 Children and
parenting (2nd ed., pp. 255-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Raby, K. L., Cicchetti, D., Carlson, E. a, Cutuli, J. J., Englund, M. M., & Egeland,
B. (2012). Genetic and caregiving-based contributions to infant attachment:
Unique associations with distress reactivity and attachment
security. Psychological science, 23, 1016-1023.
doi:10.1177/0956797612438265

Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting
style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking and academic
achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 19(3), 289-305.

Reitman, D., Rhode, P. C., Hupp, S. D. A., & Altobello, C. (2002). Development
and validation of the Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 119-127.

Roberts, G. C., Block, H., & Block, J. (1984). Continuity and change in parents'
child-rearing practices. Child Development, 55, 586-597.

Rohner, R. P. (1975). They love me, they love me not: A worldwide study
of the effects of parental acceptance and rejection. New Haven, CT:
Human Relations Area Files.

Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental-

acceptance theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. L. (2003). Social
withdrawal in childhood. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child
psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 372-406). New York: Guilford Press.

Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. A. (2001). Emotion regulation,

parenting and display of social reticence in preschoolers. Early Education and
Development, 12, 97-115.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). The socioemotional characteristics
of extremely aggressive and extremely withdrawn children. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 39, 518-534.
Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C. L., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., &
Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning
in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326-356.

Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R. S. L. (1989). Sociability and social
withdrawal in childhood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Personality, 57,
237-255.

Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Scott, A. L. (2004). On the
assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the
moderating role of severity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
673-684.

Scaramella, L. V., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L. L., & Conger, R. D. (2008).

Consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage across three generations:
Parenting behavior and child externalizing problems. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22, 725-733

Shah, R., & Waller, G. (2002). Parental style and vulnerability to depression -
the role of core beliefs. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 19-25.

Sheikh, S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2013). Paradoxical consequences of

prohibitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 301-315.
doi: 10.1037/a0032278

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1998). Harsh, firm, and permissive
parenting in low-income families: Relations to children's academic achievement
and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 483-507.

Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in

preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 41-91). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting practices,

parenting styles and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology
Review, 17, 125-146.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting,

psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child
Development, 60, 1424-1436.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact
of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting,
school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63,
1266-1281.

Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and self-handicapping:

Links with parenting styles and self-confidence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40, 961-971.

Warlaumont, A. S., Richards, J. A, Gilkerson, J., & Oller, D. K. (2014). A social

feedback loop for speech development and its reduction in
autism. Psychological Science, . doi:10.1177/0956797614531023

Wearden, A., Peters, I., Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Liversidge, T. (2008).
Adult attachment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and
others.Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1246-1257.

Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A

meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child
Development, 68, 571-591.

Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. (2003). Percieved parenting styles,
depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 521-531.

Academic Scholar?
Join our team of writers.
Write a new opinion article,
a new Psyhclopedia article review
or update a current article.
Get recognition for it.

Last Update: 6/22/2016