Sharing is caring

Sharing with those less fortunate is a value that many parents wish to pass on to their children, and one that is emphasized in many traditional religions. Apparently it is valued by guinea pigs as well:

Recently, a study about sharing has received a lot of mention in the media. Decety, Cowell, Lee, Mahasneh, Malcolm-Smith, Selcuk, and Zhou (2015) examined the influence of religion on the sharing behavior of more than 1,000 school children (ages five to twelve) in six different countries (USA, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Jordan, and China).

Children were tested individually in their schools using a modified version of The Dictator Game. Each child was offered 30 stickers and asked to choose their ten favorites. They were then informed that there would not be enough time to test all of the children at the school, so they should donate some of their stickers to the children who would otherwise receive none. The number of stickers that children chose to donate served as the measurement of sharing.

The parents of these participants also completed a questionnaire about their religious identities and religious practices, including the number of times per week the family attended religious services and the family's level of spirituality. The most commonly reported identities were: Muslim (43%); Non-religious (28%); Christian (24%).

The results grabbed media attention because the children from Non-religious families shared more stickers than the children from Muslim or Christian families. This effect was the same regardless of the level of religious practice or belief of the Muslim or Christian children. The trend was strongest among the older children in the sample (ages 8-12 years) which implies that the religious children had a longer time to internalize the values of their faiths. The authors noted that children's ages, socioeconomic statuses, and countries of origin were also predictive of sharing, but they did not explore these results in depth.

In the United States, headlines like "Religion makes children more selfish, say scientists," and, "Nonreligious children are more generous," splashed across the Internet. Some people delighted in the irony of reported selfishness from people whose religions teach generosity. Others, especially some practitioners of Islam and Christianity, were offended. But do Decety et al.'s results deserve these strong reactions?

It is true that the study demonstrated a statistical difference between Non-religious children when compared to Muslim and Christian students. That means that the results are unlikely to be due to chance, luck, or accident. So this trend is worthy of further study in future investigations of how religion influences sharing and other prosocial behaviors.

On the other hand, the average number of stickers shared by these groups were very similar. Non-religious children shared on average 4.09 of their ten stickers; Muslim and Christian children shared 3.20-3.33 of their ten stickers. The difference was consistent enough to reach statistical significance, but small enough that we would be unlikely to see a practical difference in our daily lives. In other words, if an elementary school class was made up of children from these three groups, the teacher would be unlikely to notice more or less generosity from any one group: all of the children would donate about three or four of their stickers to students who had none.

At the same time, these data tell us that we cannot assume that religious children will share more than non-religious children. In the United States this is increasingly important to understand as the number of Americans reporting that they are atheist, agnostic, or of "no religion in particular" has increased to almost 23% of adults.

Further Reading:

An online version of the Decety et al. (2015) study is temporarily available; the Current Biology publication can be accessed through your local college library.

Read Phil Zuckerman's opinion piece on "How secular family values stack up," from the Los Angeles Times.

Regardless of their religion or lack of religion, parents can get excellent tips from the Ask Dr. Sears article on "11 ways to teach your child to share." This list also includes when you should not force your child to share.

BONUS:

From the children's television program, Sesame Street, a music video "Share It Maybe;" an educational parody of Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe."

A+ for Responsive Parenting

It is no secret that parents and teachers impact children's lives. Some believe that their influences are distinct: parents are thought to take care of socializing children and teachers are assumed to be in charge of teaching kids academic skills. This somewhat crude meme illustrates this idea - but is it correct?

Could responding to your child's physical and emotional needs also influence his or her cognitive skills? A recent study by Bernier, Beauchamp, Carlson, and Lalonde (2015) supports this idea. The authors were interested if the type of attachment that children share with their mothers may relate to certain abilities that predict success in school.

You may recall that Mary Ainsworth and colleagues developed one way to study Attachment quality: briefly leaving toddlers in a Strange Situation and then reuniting them with their caregivers to observe how the children react. The majority of children got upset, but not hysterical, when left alone and were very glad when their caregiver returned: they ran to them; wanted to be held; and stopped crying almost immediately.

These children, like most American children, demonstrate a Secure Attachment relationship with their caregivers. This Secure style is associated with parents who notice when their children need something - physically or emotionally - and they respond to those needs in a prompt way. Children who share a Secure relationship learn to trust that their parents will come through for them.

In contrast, children may have an Insecure Avoidant relationship with parents who cannot be trusted to notice or take care of their needs. In this case the children don't want to be with the parents and do not rely on the parents for help.

Children can also share an Insecure Ambivalent relationship with parents who are unpredictable and unreliable at taking care of their needs. These children are always on edge because they don't know if today will be a good day or a bad day: they may be unusually clingy but also demonstrate a lot of anger toward their parents.

Finally, children raised in an abnormal environment of abuse and neglect, or by parents who are severely mentally ill, may just seem confused. This type of attachment relationship would be described as Insecure Disorganized.

We know that having a Secure Attachment relationship is associated with children demonstrating better social skills, emotional control, and improved behavior as they grow older. Bernier et al. hypothesized that this sort of attachment as a toddler would also be associated with better Executive Functioning skills during kindergarten. These Executive Functioning skills are largely regulated by the brain's prefrontal cortex and are very important for success in school. For example, relying on working memory, demonstrating the ability to plan and reach goals, and having control over your behavior are all requirements of kindergarten through college.

The authors considered 105 children who were tested at 15 months, two years, and when they were in kindergarten (age 5-6). At 15 months and age two, research assistants used a Q-Sort method to assess the attachment quality between the children and their mothers. The assistants came to each child's home and observed mother-child interactions. Based on those observations the assistants sorted 90 phrases into nine categories that ranged from "very unlike the child's behavior" to "very similar to the child's behavior." The resulting piles were compared with the piles we would expect from a Secure attachment relationship: if there was a strong match, the observed child would also have a Secure relationship with his or her mother. For example, children with Secure attachments would be rated as very similar to, "If held in mother's arms, child stops crying and quickly recovers after being frightened or upset," and rated as very unlike, "Child rarely asks mother for help" (p.1180).

At age 5 or 6, the same children were tested for general cognitive ability and specific Executive Functioning skills. General cognitive ability included an assessment with a delicious name, the Lollipop Test, which measures knowledge of colors and shapes, understanding of spatial relationships like "above" and "below," number knowledge, and letter knowledge.

Five assessments measured the children's Executive Functioning. Four of these directly tested the children's working memory, ability to follow rules, planning skills, and selective attention. Higher scores on these tests were associated with higher Executive Functioning skills. The children's kindergarten teachers completed the final assessment: they rated the children on 63 items related to problems with self-control, flexibility of thought, and metacognition (working memory combined with planning/organizational thinking). Thus, a low score on this rating was associated with higher Executive Functioning skills.

The results supported Bernier et al.'s hypothesis. Children who had earlier demonstrated Secure attachment relationships with their mothers scored higher on all of the Executive Functioning tests and received lower scores from teachers on problems with Executive Functioning. In other words, children whose parents had been responsive to their physical and emotional needs early in life were more likely to become kindergarten students with strong Executive Functioning skills. These skills in turn predict higher school success for these children.

Moreover, having a history of a Secure attachment was better at predicting good Executive Functioning skills than other factors known to have such influence. For example, attachment style predicted Executive Functioning skills better than predictions based on children's general cognitive ability scores. Likewise, attachment style's predictive powers trumped the children's ages, their families' income and education levels, and the amount of weeks that they had spent in kindergarten.

Although we cannot take these correlational results to mean that being a responsive parent or sharing a Secure Attachment relationship causes children to be primed for school success, they do imply that these things are likely to hang together. Returning to our meme, this research suggests that it is not solely the teacher's actions that will help children in school. If children are successful with the demands of kindergarten we can infer that they likely have a history of parents who wiped their noses, soothed their fears, and helped them regulate their emotions.

Further Reading:

The Bernier et al. (2015) journal article in Developmental Psychology can be accessed through your local college library.

If you are concerned that a child in your life has problems with Executive Functioning skills. Here is a resource from Understood.org: Understanding Executive Functioning Issues.

The Extension office at Purdue University offers concrete examples of parenting that are associated with Secure and Insecure Attachment relationships. The good news is that Insecure relationships can become Secure ones if parents change their behaviors.

B.F. Skinner and Cry-babies

Because of our parenting practices, long periods of crying are considered a normal part of infancy in Western cultures. When babies cry they are communicating that something feels bad: they may have pain; be frightened or lonely; feel uncomfortable; or be absolutely starving. In addition to the compassion that crying evokes, hearing a baby cry is simply unpleasant - we react to it physiologically and are motivated to do whatever it takes to stop it. We pick up our babies, inspect them, rock them, sing to them, offer them food, or grab a favorite toy to distract them...

In B.F. Skinner's theory of Operant Conditioning the reaction, or reinforcement, after a behavior happens is what encourages or discourages it from happening again. This meme is an example of two kinds of conditioning, or training, that encourage behaviors to continue:  negative and positive reinforcement. Without meaning to, both the child and the mother are training each other to keep doing these things.

The child is using negative reinforcement to to train his mother to continue giving him a teddy bear. In negative reinforcement there is something that is ongoing and unpleasant - in this case crying - and it is removed only when the trainee does what she is supposed to do - give a teddy bear. Negative reinforcement encourages a trained behavior to continue in the future, so the little boy is increasing the likeliness of getting his teddy bear in the future.

The mother is using positive reinforcement, or reward, to train her child to cry. In positive reinforcement once the trainee does what he is supposed to do - in this case crying - he gets something pleasant as a reward - the teddy bear. Positive reinforcement also encourages a trained behavior to continue in the future, so the mother is increasing the likeliness of having her son cry in the future.

Skinner, like the other Behaviorists, was not interested in thoughts or feelings because those are not observable actions. Instead he saw this type of training as reflexive: contrary to our meme, the boy and his mother are not planning these behaviors instead they are reacting to the situation. Even so, their reactions increase the likelihood of the situation occurring again.

Operant Conditioning is a very old theory, but it still can be applied to parenting today. For example, Thompson, Bruzek, and Cotnoir-Bichelman (2011) designed a small experiment to examine how infant cries may negatively reinforce caregivers and train them to perform comforting behaviors. The authors were also interested in what happens when that training has occurred but none of the comforting behaviors works to stop inconsolable crying.

Thompson et al. had a very small sample size: eight female and three male undergraduates were observed as they interacted with a baby doll under directions to, "...do what comes naturally" (p. 297). Eight of the participants were asked if they had prior experience with babies and all of them did; the other three were not asked. Even with this curiously missing information, we know that the majority of participants had real life experience "doing what comes naturally" with an infant.

Tested one at a time, all of the participants experienced several Negative Reinforcement conditions: a recording of an infant crying played until the participant engaged in the desired behavior with the doll. These behaviors ranged from rocking, bottle feeding, and offering a toy. All of the participants showed signs of training: they learned to do the desired behavior to stop the recorded crying.

Eventually the participants were each placed into an Extinction condition: this time no matter what comforting behavior they tried, the recorded crying would not stop. The participants all tried the behavior that had previously worked to stop the crying in the earlier conditions. When it did not work nine of these undergraduates showed extinction of that training: they gave up trying to get the crying to stop. Two of the participants did not show an extinction: they persisted with the trained comforting behavior for 30 minutes as the crying recording played the entire time. Perhaps these participants had real-life experience with their own colicky babies and their behavior in the Extinction condition mirrored what they did for their own children: persisted in giving care.

The results support the notion that negative reinforcement teaches parents which comforting behaviors work to stop their babies' crying and thus encourages these behaviors to continue in the future. The results may also demonstrate how some parents could give up and stop any attempt to comfort their babies when inconsolable crying occurs. In the worst case, these parents might engage in neglect or abuse of these infants. The authors did note that these findings and their implications would be stronger with a larger sample and a more realistic test situation.

In addition, I would caution that we should not interpret this to mean that babies consciously manipulate their caregivers. To manipulate another person is a very advanced cognitive ability. It implies that one person is going to fake a behavior to trick another person into doing something that he or she really does not want to do. Young infants do not possess the ability to do this: instead they simply cry when they feel bad. As well, most parents want to care for their babies and are motivated to reduce their babies' distress - they do not need to be tricked into these behaviors. In the ideal situation babies learn that if they cry a parent will help them feel better, and parents learn how to best calm their babies' distress - or even better, how to avoid that distress in the first place.

Further Reading:

A pdf of the Thompson et al. article, published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, can be accessed for free online.

Here are some good ideas for comforting a baby who is crying inconsolably from Ask Dr. Sears. Dr. Harvey Karp has a combination of five comforting behaviors that can help even colicky babies stop crying: here is a video of that technique on WebMD.

In addition to learning their babies' early cues of distress, parents can REDUCE crying by carrying their babies MORE often. An article by Hunziker and Barr (1986), published in Pediatrics, supports this idea.

Parenting: Free-range tigers in helicopters?

Throughout June we addressed the four styles that psychologists most often use to classify parents: Authoritative (the best); Authoritarian; Permissive; and Indifferent-Uninvolved (the worst). However, an Internet search reveals that many memes feature controversial styles of parenting whose names are less academic - it seems that everyone is an "expert." So how could so-called Free-range, Tiger, and Helicopter parents relate to psychology's four types?

Free-range parents advocate allowing children to spend time alone: both in the home and outdoors. These parents may equip their children with bracelets that read, "I'm not lost, I'm a free-range kid." The argument behind this parenting is that the risk of kidnapping and molestation has declined but parents' fear of those things has increased resulting in children being constantly supervised by adults. Free-range children are supposed to benefit by having unsupervised time to explore their world and by having to negotiate arguments with other children or other dilemmas on their own.

In the best possible case the Free-range parent could be Authoritative. They would be very loving toward their children but balance that love with age-appropriate rules and consequences. In this case the children would have very clear rules about when and where they could go, their expected behavior when they are out on their own, and an understanding of what age-appropriate and fair consequences would occur if they broke those rules. This would produce a situation where the child is only granted the freedom that he or she can handle based on age and individual maturity. This would also mean that the child is given guidelines for what is acceptable behavior and has had past practice thinking through moral and other types of dilemmas with the parents. Indeed Authoritative parenting teaches age-appropriate independence.

On the other hand, it is also possible that Free-range parents could be Permissive or Indifferent-Uninvolved. A Permissive parent is very loving but has very few rules or consequences for their children. One criticism of Free-range parents is that their children cause problems to property or fight with kids - but when confronted by other parents the children either do not care or state that their parents have said that they do not need to listen to other adults. Children raised by Permissive parents may have bad behavior and also struggle when confronted by situations that include rules.

In the worst-case scenario, Free-range parents could be Indifferent-Uninvolved, meaning that the parents have such little interest in the children that they don't express love to them and they don't bother giving them rules or consequences. Controversy has occurred when concerned neighbors have called the police when they saw Free-range children by themselves. To an outside observer it may be very difficult to tell the difference between a child who is granted more freedom than is the norm and a child who is neglected by his or her parents. Neglected children suffer a host of psychological and developmental problems including substance abuse and trouble with the law.

Another type of parent that seems legendary on the Internet is the so-called Tiger Mother. This type of parenting was highlighted by Amy Chua who suggested that Asian (and certain other immigrant) parents will produce more successful and productive children because they relentlessly push academic and extracurricular activities. Chua is critical of Western parenting's focus on protecting children's self-esteem and of the Western concept that an individual child's likes and dislikes need to be considered.

In relation to psychology, a Tiger parent would most likely be considered to be Authoritarian. This means that the parent does not express a lot of love to the children (even if they feel a lot of love for them) and primarily interacts with them by controlling their behavior through rules better suited to older children and consequences that are harsh. Children parented this way may have low self-esteem and  feel resentful and angry which leads to sneaky, bad behavior when the parent is not around. They may also struggle as adults when they do not have that parent around to tell them what to do.

Recently, there has been a lot of hype about a final type of parent: the Helicopter parent. Features on this topic tend to focus on stories from college professors or administrators who fear that today's young adults are too close to their parents and cannot make any decisions without phoning or texting them. The parents are also criticized for treating their college students as if they were elementary students: even I have been contacted by parents wanting to discuss their adult children's work in my college classes! These news reports about college students usually go on to generalize that parents with small children should not be "too involved," they should not "hover" because children need unsupervised time to work things out on their own, and that they should "allow their kids to fail" - all to prevent them from growing into these adults who cause consternation at university.

It is possible that Helicopter parents are Permissive parents: they are very loving but do not attempt to set limits on their children's behavior; instead they act as if they want to be the kids' friends. In this scenario, the parent has always focused on keeping the child happy - maybe doing their homework for them or assuming that any behavior problems at school are silly things made up by the teachers (their "angel" can do no wrong). As their children become young adults, these parents continue to fail at having age-appropriate expectations for them, so they coddle their college students and intrude into their affairs. Again, Permissive parenting is associated with children who have problems.

On the other hand, if we only consider parents with young children and adolescents, what seems like Helicopter parenting may actually be good, Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents are very loving toward their children but they have age- and individual- appropriate expectations for their behavior. Average children can have large individual differences, for example, some five-year-olds can be dropped off at a birthday party and have a wonderful time while other five-year-olds still need a parent to stay throughout the party to function. There are also children with hidden struggles such as anxiety or Sensory Processing Disorder:  parents of these children may appear to be hovering or "Hoovering" (vacuuming up any potential problems in the situation) when in fact they are doing what their individual children need to be successful in that situation.

By definition, an Authoritative parent is interested in teaching age-appropriate independence, including how to think through moral dilemmas about behavior. So by definition, an Authoritative parent would not do their children's homework and would not expect their child to avoid failure. Likewise, an Authoritative parent would not intervene in a young adult's life the way that is portrayed in stories about Helicopter parents. Moreover, they would not need to because they have equipped their now grown child to deal with things on their own.

These three pop culture parenting styles bring us back to what we know is associated with the best outcomes for children: lots of expression of love and affection combined with age-appropriate and fair discipline that teaches kids to reason their way through questions of right and wrong. Some Free-range parents and some of who may appear to be Helicopter parents are likely this sort of Authoritative parent.

These pop culture parenting styles also can remind us of what is associated with problems for children. Clearly children who do not receive a lot of love and who are always left to figure out right and wrong on their own will have problems: it is possible that some Free-range parenting may fall into this Indifferent-Uninvolved style. Likewise, we know that parents who just want to be their kids' friends - they are very loving but set very few rules for their children's behavior - are also associated with kids who struggle. It could be that some Free-range parents and the stereotypical Helicopter parent would fit this Permissive profile. Finally, children who are constantly controlled by stern parents who expect too much of them also demonstrate problems. We would expect that Tiger parents may be examples of this Authoritarian category.

Another concern is that parents read about these pop culture styles and stop doing the things we know are good for their children because they don't want to be judged. Taken together the message from Free-range and Helicopter parenting seems to be, "Don't get involved in your child's life; don't help your child." On the other hand the message from Tiger parenting is, "Your child is not an individual, all children can be shaped into adults with high-paying, prestigious jobs if you are involved in all of their choices and control their choices." Not only are those messages conflicting, they get the idea of Involvement wrong.

In psychology, Involvement is not just spending quality time with your children, it is also really knowing who your child is as an individual: their likes/dislikes; their abilities/struggles; and the people and experiences that make up their daily lives. High Involvement is associated with the best outcomes for children and it is usually seen along side of good levels of Warmth and Control.  For example, Authoritative parenting is high in Warmth:  parents who freely expresses love to and try to remain positive with their children are going to be involved in their lives.  Authoritative parenting is medium in Control: to have age- and individual appropriate rules parents need to really know their children, which is high Involvement. Another part of medium Control is having fair, age-appropriate consequences if a rule is broken - to know that a rule has been broken and to know that the punishment is fair the parent has to be involved with their children. Part of this involvement includes dialoguing with older kids and teens about the rules which teaches them to think through moral dilemmas on their own; this is very different than expecting children to mindlessly obey authority figures.

It may not have a trendy name, but Authoritative parenting is the way to go.

Further Reading:

An article in The Atlantic magazine: The real problem with helicopter parents: there aren't enough of them.

WebMD has advice for knowing when your child is ready to stay home alone or to babysit younger children.

The American Psychological Association published a press release: Reducing academic pressure may help children succeed.

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 Friend

In the film “Mary Poppins” Mr. Banks and his children sing about the characteristics of an ideal nanny.  Mr. Banks would like an Authoritarian caregiver, one who is Low in Warmth and very High in Control like a military sergeant, and the children would prefer somebody who is simply kind, fun, and makes few demands on your behavior…much like a friend. 

Jane and Michael Banks think that the ideal caregiver would be a person who is very High in Warmth yet very Low in Control.  Baumrind described this combination as the Indulgent or Permissive Parent.  Although this parenting style may sound good to most children, this style is not associated with the best outcomes.

Permissive parents get half of the equation right by being High in Warmth.  We know that children do best when parents frequently and overtly express love to them.  So these parents praise their kids when they do something well, they hug and kiss their children and say, “I love you,” and they keep things positive at home to buffer them from the stresses of adult life.  Their children know that they are loved.

 
















Permissive parents fall short when it comes to disciplining their children:  they are too Low in Control.  Part of Control involves setting rules and the ideal, as demonstrated by the Authoritative parent, is having age-appropriate rules that are clearly communicated to the child.  The Permissive parent, like Mrs. George (played by Amy Poehler) from "Mean Girls," may have no rules or very few rules; if there are rules they may be too lenient or inappropriate for the child’s age.  
 

Rules allow us to feel confident:  we don’t have to guess what is right and wrong all of the time and it is easy to know how to be successful.  Children raised with Low Control may feel unsafe or unsure because it is largely up to them to guess what are good or bad choices.  You might have a similar sort of feeling if your professor just said, “Write some sort of paper on a Child Development topic and turn it in.”  You would be nervous because you might guess correctly about the paper’s format, length, topic, and due date and do okay OR you might make mistakes due to lack of information and get a bad grade. It is not clear what you need to do to be successful.

Another aspect of Control has to do with punishments and the ideal that is demonstrated by the Authoritative parent, is having age-appropriate consequences that occur every single time that the rule is broken.  The Permissive parent may not have any consequences or such easy consequences that the child may not mind them.  It is also possible that the parent does not follow through to make sure that a consequence happens:  they are all bark and no bite.  A basic idea from Skinner’s Operant Conditioning is that punishing behaviors will stop them from occurring in the future; without unpleasant consequences children are likely to continue bad behaviors.

These parents may consciously want to avoid influencing their children’s behavior:  maybe they were raised by a very controlling, Authoritarian parent so they have the mistaken idea that any Control is bad.  It may also be that they do not have a good concept of Child Development or they do not spend quality time with their children so they do not know what behaviors they should expect from kids of that age.  You could also imagine that very young parents may still feel like kids themselves, so they literally view their children as their peers and try to be their kids’ friends.  It could also be that parents are too stressed from their adult lives and don’t want to get into an argument with their kids – think about divorced parents who only want to the kids to have fun during their time together. 

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is negative:  as you might imagine the children exhibit high amounts of bad behavior.  When they go to school they may struggle when they are asked to follow rules and deal with consequences.  The goal of discipline is not just to have children behave well while they are young, but it is to socialize children into society so they ultimately will grow up to be productive adults who follow the norms and laws of their culture.  A child raised with Low Control is not getting that socialization.

Another type of parent who is also Low in Control was added by Eleanor Maccoby to Baumrind’s original list of Permissive, Authoritarian, and Authoritative.  Next week we’ll look at this Indifferent-Uninvolved parent who is not only Low in Control, but also Low in Warmth.

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.

A Psychology Today blog post by Jay Belsky: "Parent to Child:  I am not your friend (nor should I be)."

Listen to a Speaking of Psychology podcast from the American Psychological Association featuring Alan Kazdin.  After the funky introductory music...a discussion of how to discipline children and teens.

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.