Parenting with Poor Style: The Absentee

Diana Baumrind originally conceptualized three types of parents.  The best type, Authoritative, is very loving and uses age-appropriate, fair, predictable forms of discipline. Permissive parents get half of the equation correct – they are very loving to their kids – but they let their kids down by being too laidback when it comes to discipline. Authoritarian parents go awry by not showing their love and by using harsh, unfair discipline that is not age-appropriate.

Eleanor Maccoby added a fourth type of parent who also gets both Warmth and Control wrong:  the Indifferent-Uninvolved parent.  In many ways, these parents seem “checked-out” in their children’s lives:  even if they live with them they act like absentees.

Indifferent-Uninvolved parents are Low in Warmth.  This means that they are serious or gruff toward their kids, they rarely praise their children, they don’t show much affection or say, “I love you,” and if they are stressed out, they take it out on the family.  It may be that they do love their kids but something is preventing them from expressing it – for example, if they are dealing with physical or mental illness.  It could also be that they do not feel love for their children – maybe this was an unwanted pregnancy or they feel resentful for the attention given to the child.

At the same time, Indifferent-Uninvolved parents are Low in Control.  This means that they may not have any rules for their children, or that these rules are better suited for younger kids – they don’t expect enough of their kids.  Even if there are rules, these rules can be easily broken without any real or meaningful consequence. It could be that they have low Involvement with their child, so they don’t know what they should expect of children of those ages, and they aren’t around enough to supervise the children to know a rule was broken.  It may be that the parent is too stressed from his or her own life to be able to enforce these rules.  It could also be that the parent has no interest in these children beyond providing for their basic needs:  what the kids do, good or bad, is not on their radar.

If some problems are associated with Permissive parenting (High Warmth; Low Control) and Authoritarian parenting (Low Warmth; High Control), we see that Indifferent-Uninvolved parenting is associated with the very worst child outcomes.  Children with Indifferent-Uninvolved parents are more likely to have behavior problems as children.  They are also most likely to grow up to have substance abuse issues and problems with the law as teenagers.  This "rejecting and neglecting" style of parenting is associated with serious problems in development.

If you think about it, these children grow up getting nothing from their parents.  With Authoritative parents, kids get two good things:  lots of love and safe boundaries set by adults who are in tune with them.  With Permissive parents, kids get one good thing: lots of love.  With Authoritarian parents, kids get nothing that is ideal but at least the parents show interest in them through their intense policing and discipline.  With Indifferent-Uninvolved parents, children get the message that they are nothing:  unloved and uninteresting.

 Further Reading:

At your local college library you can access a good historical review of parenting, including Baumrind's three styles: Maccoby, E. E. (1992) The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, Vol 28(6), 1006-1017.

In its extreme, Indifferent-Uninvolved parenting can give way to neglect.  Here is information from the American Psychological Association on "Understanding and Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect."

Psychology Today magazine offers some parental stress management tips, with specific reference to parents of children who have special needs.

Parenting with Poor Style: The Sergeant

Last week we looked at what is considered to be the best type of parent, the Authoritative parent who is like a good coach: High in Warmth and Medium in Control.  This week our topic is another one of Baumrind’s parenting styles: the Authoritarian parent.  The Authoritarian parent is much like a military sergeant:  Low in Warmth and High in Control.

The measure of Warmth has to do with how much parents express love in obvious, noticeable ways to their children.  Authoritarian parents usually love their children very much, but they are Low in Warmth, so they do not show this love very much.  These parents often seem stern and serious around their children and offer little praise even when their kids have earned it, they are not particularly affectionate and rarely – if ever – say “I love you,” and if they are having a bad day they take it out on their children. 

This Low Warmth may be the result of how they were raised by their own parents, the culture that they were born into, or a mistaken belief that showing more Warmth would make their kids soft or self-centered.  As adults we can look back on our parents’ behavior and explain it (“Oh, she did that because of the culture she was raised in,”) and also justify it (“Now I understand that my dad loved me because he worked hard so that I had food to eat,”) but small children cannot think in such complicated ways.  Low Warmth is not ideal because it is not obvious enough; children are less likely to feel loved.

Another problem with Authoritarian parents is that they are too High in Control.  Control has to do with discipline, and we see that Authoritarian parents have too many rules and these rules are often better suited for older children or adults.  Because their expectations are too high, their kids often fail to meet them and are given harsh punishments.

Authoritarian parents also prize obedience to authority more than independent thinking.  They believe that if an adult or an authority figure tells you to do something, then you must do it without questioning.  They are not interested in dialoguing with older children about the household rules – in fact, an Authoritarian parent would get angry and punish a child for suggesting that a rule should be changed.

Baumrind (2013) further clarified that the Authoritarian parent uses a "coercive" type of Control; one that attempts to influence not only the behaviors, but also the thoughts and feelings of their children.  She writes: 

Coercive control is arbitrary, intrusive, and domineering, and directed not only at the child’s misbehavior but also at the child’s expression of initiative and agency (e.g., “You’re a disobedient child! Don’t you dare talk back to your mother!”). In contrast to coercive control, confrontive control [that is used by Authoritative parents] is reasoned, negotiable, and outcome-oriented, and directed at specific behaviors the child is doing that the parent wants the child to alter (e.g., “Stop teasing your brother”) or to do that she is not doing (e.g., “It’s time for you to go to bed”).... For authoritarian parents, obedience signifies deferential respect, a virtue to be rewarded, and disobedience signifies subversion of adult authority, a moral failing to be punished. (p. 431) 

Maybe Authoritarian parents were raised this way and so they are repeating the pattern.  It is also possible that they do not have an understanding of child development, so they do not know what are age-appropriate expectations for their kids.  Our culture tends to blame parents when children are disruptive in public, so maybe these parents fear judgment from others and react by going overboard.  We also see that parents who have little control over their own adult work lives – instead they keep their job by following orders – are more likely to emphasize obedience to their children.

Children raised by Authoritarian parents are less helpful to others and are more likely to fear their parents rather than respect them; this can cause them to feel very angry toward their parents.  They usually follow the rules when a parent or authority figure is around, but when they are not, they tend to have bad behavior or be sneaky to get back at their parents whose rules and mind games they resent.  How many adults have purposely broken rules when their boss is not around in "revenge" for unfair work policies and unfair punishments?

When they grow up and move out of their parents’ home, they may “go crazy” with the freedom as they are not used to making choices or determining right or wrong on their own.  So if you really want good behavior from your kids and you want them to make good choices on their own, Authoritarian parenting is not the way to go.

Some limited research points to a situation in which it might be useful to be Authoritarian: raising children in dangerous, crime-filled neighborhoods.  Much like a military sergeant may keep troops safe by being stern and barking orders that – for life or death reasons – must be followed, these parents’ serious demeanors and High levels of Control may keep their children from joining gangs, committing crimes, or being shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In these extreme living conditions, you could imagine that the problems associated with Authoritarian parenting may seem worth it if it keeps the kids safe in the moment.  However, this exception is still being debated, and psychologists still recommend Authoritative parenting for all families, regardless of where they live.

If you were raised by Authoritarian parents you may have decided that you never want to be like that with your own kids.  You plan on showing your love to your kids all the time and are aiming for a Medium level of Control, that is confrontive but not coercive.  It is pretty easy to show love to your kids, but if you never had a model for Medium Control, it would be difficult not to overcompensate and instead end up Low in Control.  Next week we will look at parents who are very loving to their children, but do not effectively influence their children’s behavior.

Further Reading:

At your local college library you can access a good historical review of parenting, including Baumrind's three styles: Maccoby, E. E. (1992) The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, Vol 28(6), 1006-1017.

If you realize that you are frequently angry around your children, Ask Dr. Sears has some suggestions to help you.  These suggestions are not only good for parents but for anyone who struggles with daily frustrations.

A good guide to age-appropriate discipline at different ages from Canadian pediatricians (and the Further Reading section of this blog post includes a similar one from the U.S.).  This article explains the goals of discipline and offers suggestions for doctors and parents.

Parenting with Style: Warmth; Control; Involvement

School's out for Summer!  The kids are home all day and parents are growing in appreciation for teachers with each passing moment!

In honor of this, That's Psych! will focus on Parenting Styles for the month of June.

Psychologists usually evaluate parenting based on three dimensions: Warmth; Control; and Involvement.  Warmth has to do with how much parents express the love that they feel for their children. This love can be expressed through praising children when they do something well, hugs and kisses, saying, "I love you," and keeping things positive around the kids - shielding them from the ups and downs of the adults' own lives.  If parents frequently do these things, they are getting it right!  These parents would be considered to be High in Warmth.

On the other hand, parents who are Low in Warmth, may love their children, but they do not show it very much.  Instead they may appear stern, they are not very affectionate and rarely say "I love you," and if they have a bad day, they take it out on their kids by being grumpy around them.

Control has to do with discipline:  does the parent have rules and, if those rules are broken, is there some kind of consequence?  The parents who get it right, are considered to be Medium in Control.  This means that they have rules, but these are age-appropriate and sensible.  It also means that when these rules are broken, there is some sort of consequence, but this punishment is also age-appropriate and sensible.  These parents are really interested in teaching children the moral, or the reason, behind the rules.  For example, you don't hit people because it is not okay to hurt others.

In contrast, parents who are High in Control have too many rules and they often expect their children to behave as if they are older than they really are.  If expectations are too high, it means that the kids will often fail at following these rules; a parent who is High in Control also gives very harsh punishment as a consequence.  These parents are really interested in their children obeying authority: it does not matter why there is a rule, if an adult tells you to do something you must do it.

We can also find parents who are very Low in Control.  These parents either don't have rules or have very few rules for their children.  It may be that they don't expect enough from their children as they grow up.  If a rule is broken, these parents rarely have consequences for their children, or the punishment is so light that it has little effect.  These parents aren't interested in playing a role in shaping their children's behavior by teaching right from wrong.

In addition to Warmth and Control, parents can also differ in the amount of Involvement that they have in their children's lives.  Parents who are High in Involvement really know their children:  they know what is happening in their daily lives and in their inner lives.  For example, a parent who is High in Involvement would know the names of the child's friends and teachers, the child's favorite and most despised foods,  and what scares the child the most.  These parents spend quality time with their children and, just like Involvement, usually get Warmth and Control right.

A parent who is Low in Involvement would not know the details of the child's daily life or emotional life.  Often these parents spend little quality time with their children, and are likely to show problems with Warmth and Control.

In the next four blog posts, we'll feature the different types of parents and how they stack up on Warmth, Control, and by association, Involvement.  Parenting styles are in fashion this June!

Further Reading:

Want some ideas about showing High Warmth to your kids?  The Baby Center has ideas for young children and Psychology Today has ideas for teens.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a website for parents: healthychildren.org .  Look here for good suggestions about discipline and how to be Medium in Control.

Related to Involvement, here is an article from The Daily Telegraph that includes 25 questions to ask your children. 

Saying "I love you"...

For this post I have to revert to preschool scatological humor for just a moment...

so if a brief, funny reference to poop is offensive...

read no further.

I have often thought that diarrhea is really the perfect excuse if you want to leave a boring situation.  If anyone tries to stop your departure, whispering, "I have diarrhea," will be the instant get-out-of-jail-free card because everybody has been there and -- for goodness sake -- nobody wants you to stick around in that state.  

With this shared human experience we introduce this week's meme:

When I searched this meme on the Internet I found a curious thing:  like this version starring Optimistic O'Connell, the other versions display a male making this statement.  Ignore the diarrhea part for now - what interested me was that this is a meme of about a confession of love.  And some versions -- like this one -- convey that this confession is being expressed to a female.

Past research suggests that, in heterosexual dating relationships, men tend to tell their partners, "I love you," earlier women do.  A pair of studies by Ackerman, Griskevicis, and Li (2011) confirm that trend, and demonstrate that this reality is the opposite of our stereotype.  Sixty-four percent of college students (who were stopped on a street corner and offered, "candy and juice drinks" (p. 1082) for their insights - I guess that is all it takes...) actually believed that the reverse was true:  that women say "I love you" first.

Ackerman et al. (2011)  includes other laboratory studies about how people feel when their partners just can't hold it in and blurt out "I love you."  Not surprisingly:  they like it.  But does the timing matter and what do we interpret that "I love you" to mean?  Because the authors come from an Evolutionary Psychology point of view, they were particularly interested in the variable of sex.

The authors' final studies determined that men are happiest when their female partners say "I love you," before the relationship has become sexual; women are happiest when that confession of love occurs after sex has been initiated.  This gender difference meshed well with the participants' reported interpretations of "I love you" at different points in the relationship:  men interpreted women's pre-sex "I love you" to mean, "I will probably have sex with you in the future;" while women interpreted a pre-sex "I love you" to mean, "I am trying to convince you to have sex with me."  If instead men's first "I love you" occurs after sex is introduced into the relationship, women interpret that same phrase to mean, "I will stick around for you."

Ackerman et al. invoke Evolutionary theory to interpret these findings.  The basic idea, put forth by researchers such as Buss, is that men have evolved to look for baby-makers - so they would like it if they get the signal that sexual reproduction might be possible.  Women have evolved to look for a mate who will stick around when they are pregnant and nursing babies - so they would like it if they get the signal that a guy is in it for the long-haul and not just looking for one night of reproduction of the fittest.

Evolutionary theory is one way to look at gender differences.  An alternative point of view, Social Role Theory, comes from Eagly and Wood (1999).  They suggest that today's gender stereotypes may have their roots in the long history of men having more power than women.  This inequality came from some biological differences (men are stronger and faster; solely women contend with pregnancy and breast feeding) that gave way to common roles that men and women took on in society.  Seeing thousands of years with more men in leadership positions we still leap to conclusions that all men are better leaders than all women; seeing thousands of years with more women than men caring for children we still leap to conclusions that all women are more nurturing than all men.

So it may be that evolutionary reproductive urges are guiding the timing and interpretation of "I love you."  It could also be that Social Role Theory is guiding these behaviors.  In that case, men's history of greater power and our stereotype of them as being leaders allow them to take more risks in relationships by saying "I love you" first and not being scared off if women say it before sex has occurred.  Likewise, women's history of less power and our stereotype of them as caregivers might encourage them to hold back that "I love you" until they have evidence (like sex) that their partners will be glad to hear this.

At this point we cannot say which perspective is right.  But what you can know for certain is this:  if somebody tells you "I love you," and you don't feel the same way...just tell them you have diarrhea and they will get out of your way.

Further Reading:

A post on a related topic from the Science of Relationships blog:  "Who Falls in Love First"?  This study is also explained using Evolutionary theory; can you imagine how Social Role Theory might interpret the same findings? 

Click here for home remedies for diarrhea and for a broken heart.

You can find a version of this article on Joshua Ackerman's website and obtain the published article through your local university library:  Ackerman, J.M, Griskevicius, V., Li, N.P. (2011) Let's get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6),1079-1094. 

A Post for Valentine's Day

Maybe you love Valentine's Day or maybe you loathe it, either way it is hard to miss that it's happening this week with all the red and white, heart-shaped gift items in the stores.  In honor of this day of Public Displays of Affection, I bring you this week's meme:

Do you agree with this meme? 

When I saw this I thought of two recent studies that my friend Dr. Benjamin Le is publishing with his colleagues.  The first study asked 200 participants, who were currently in romantic relationships, about the level of satisfaction and commitment in their relationships.  Those same people gave the researchers access to their personal Facebook profiles; assistants then looked at each profile to see if the participants had a) set their relationship statuses to "in a relationship" and b) if their profile pictures were selfies or "relfies" (relationship selfies) with their romantic partners.  The assistants used what they found to guess the level of satisfaction and commitment of each participant's romantic relationship. 

It turned out that they were particularly likely to guess that a relationship was great when a person's status was set to "in a relationship" AND that person's profile pic was a relfie.  The guesses by the assistants were also very similar to the actual self-reports from the participants themselves.

In the second study, the researchers got creative and made up fake Facebook profiles for imaginary people.  Some of the profiles had the relationship status set to "in a relationship" and others didn't; some of the profiles had selfies as profile pictures while others had relfies.  The researchers also varied the character of the status updates:  some gave a lot of personal details about the relationship and gushed about the romantic partner; others were positive about the partner but did not give a lot of relationship details; and other statuses were not about the romantic partner at all.

One hundred new participants (who did not realize that what they were seeing was not real) got to look at these fake profiles and were asked to rate the imaginary people from these profiles on the quality of their relationship satisfaction and commitment.  The participants also were asked how much they liked each of the imaginary people who owned these profiles.

Similar to what was found in the first study, the participants were most likely to think the imaginary person was in a great relationship if his or her Facebook profile included"in a relationship" AND that person's profile pic was a relfie.  In addition, when status updates included personal details about the relationship and ooey-gooey gushing about the romantic partner - the relationship was especially likely to be judged as a good one.

However, those mushy status updates came at a price:  the imaginary people who posted those types of statuses were the LEAST LIKED by the participants.  TMI much?

So, is the meme correct?  Yes and no according to these findings.  If you display your romantic relationship on Facebook because you have an awesome relationship you can bet that your message will be read loud and clear by your Facebook friends:  they are likely to interpret your status, relfies, and posts to mean that your relationship is solid.  However, the more lovey-dovey your status updates are...your friends may start to like you a bit less. 

You win some, you lose some.  Happy Valentine's Day!

Further Reading:

You can read Dr. Le's description of his studies and other research related to relfies on the Science of Relationships website.  This is great site run by psychologists (two of my friends!) that provides good research on relationships in a fun to read format.