Relationships Between Child-Rearing Styles and Child Behavior Over Time Robert W.
Chamberlin, MD
\s=b\ We Investigate the hypothesis that "authoritarian" styles of child rearing will lead to more home and school problems than will "accommodative" styles. One hundred thirty-five children have been followed up from age 2 into first grade. Follow-up observations show no significant differences between groups on any
of the scores indicating malfunctioning for boys or girls at home or school. However, the home behavior of boys being raised with accommodative styles was described in more positive terms by their mothers than those raised with authoritarian styles. The accommodatively raised girls were described in more positive terms by their first grade teachers. We found no evidence in this study that the permissive style is producing large numbers of "spoiled brats" nor that the authoritarian styles are producing large numbers of overly aggressive or inhibited children. The way parents handle authority relationships is not sufficiently predictive of later problems to warrant any widespread attempts by physicians to change them. The physician should respect individual differences in child-rearing style and only intervene where there is substantial evidence that a particular approach is having a harmful effect. (Am J Dis Child 132:155-160, 1978)
effort to
preventaIn tive approachdevelop development an
a
to the
of behavior and emotional problems in the early school aged child, a search for "high risk" child rearing methods has been undertaken so that when detected in the preschool age period, the physician would be in a strategic position to intervene and thereby prevent the development of later problems. A review of the literature suggested that authoritarian ap¬ proaches to child rearing might be From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Reprint requests to University of Rochester, Department of Pediatrics, Box 666, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642 (Dr Chamberlin).
such a "high risk" method.1 Studies of leadership styles have consistently linked "authoritarian" approaches (frequent use of orders, commands, attacks on self esteem, threats, and punishment to control behavior) with higher levels of subor¬ dinate resistance, less open communi¬ cation, greater peer hostility and less self reliance than "accommodative" styles (frequent use of requests, providing objective reasons for change, offering alternatives).' Al¬ though most of these studies have not been carried out in family settings, the few that have, generally report results consistent with these predic¬ tions. On the other hand, the lay public and some physicians appear much more concerned that parents who adopt an accommodative style will become "overpermissive" and produce children with spoiled, undisciplined behavior. There is some evidence in the group dynamics literature indi¬ cating that, at times, accommodative leadership styles do degenerate into "laissez-faire" patterns wTith poor re¬ sults.' Recently, however, the authors of a review of child-rearing studies con¬ cluded that there was no strong evidence to suggest that any one pattern led to any one type of child behavior.2 Other investigators have presented evidence to support the hypothesis that many of the behav¬ ioral differences noted in children are at least as much related to tempera¬ ment characteristics that can be recognized in the early months of life as
they are to child-rearing practices.
'
These authors conclude that behavior problems arise from a "lack of fit" between a particular type of child and the child-rearing pattern adopted by the parents rather than from any style of rearing by itself. Some inves¬ tigators have even suggested that the
type of child produces the childrearing pattern rather than vice versa.4
These differences in thinking about the cause of behavioral problems in young children have important impli¬ cations for the practice of pediatrics. If child-rearing styles by them¬ selves have considerable influence on the behavior patterns of young chil¬ dren the physician should attempt to
identify "high-risk" patterns as soon possible and alter them. On the other hand, if child-rearing styles have relatively little influence on the development of future problems the pediatrician should respect family styles and not try to impose his or her own child-rearing values on the par¬ ents of his patients. Any intervention as
would then be based on current evidence of a harmful effect on a child rather than on ideologic grounds or on the prediction of future problems. In a recent paper from this study the relationships between authoritar¬ ian and accommodative child-rearing styles and 2-year-old behavior pat¬ terns at one point in time were reported." While there were no strong relationships between the mother's approach to handling authority rela¬ tionships and the child's behavior pattern, there was a modest but consistent correlation between ag¬ gressive-resistant child behavior and the use of authoritarian methods of child rearing. The original report involved 34 accommodative and 38 authoritarian families. A similar rela¬ tionship was found with a new sample of 36 accommodative and 34 authori¬ tarian families the next year. All these children have now been followed up through kindergarten and first
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
grade.
The purpose of this paper is to report the relationships between these two
contrasting child-rearing styles
and the later home and school behav¬ ior of these children. The following specific hypothesis was tested: Children being raised with authoritarian child-rearing styles will
display more "aggressive-resistant" and "dependent-inhibited" behavior in the home and school than children raised with accommodative styles.
METHODS
Population, Sample, and Design The study was designed to observe
a
group of children from 2 years of age through entry into first grade. The participants were recruited from two pediatrie group practices located in suburban Rochester. The major reason for restricting the sample to this largely middle class population is that families using accommodative styles are hard to find in other social strata. In fact, even with these middle class families, it took considerable effort to find enough families using predominantly an accommodative style. Similar difficulties were encountered by Watson," which suggests that our society is not as permissive as we are sometimes led to believe. Additional sam¬ ple restrictions to reduce influences on child behavior other than child-rearing style were that (1) only children between the ages of 21 and 27 months at the time of the first home interview were included; (2) the children had to be free from any chronic illness or disability; and (3) the families had to have both parents present in the household, be economically self suffi¬ cient, and have mothers working as full time housewives or less than 20 hours a week at outside jobs. Finally, each family was thought to be free of gross emotional or marital problems by the family pediatri¬ cian at the time of entry into the study. Details of sample recruitment are described in another publication."1 Demo¬ graphic characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Even with this restricted sample there are educational, religious, and social '
Measures
Child-rearing Styles.—Details of this
sure have been described in previous publi¬ cations.'; In brief, mothers were asked to describe their initial and follow-up responses to a number of behaviors typical for the child's age. These responses were coded according to the type of power used by the mother to influence the child's behavior. The percentage of situations handled with "unmodified" power (use of orders without reasons, threats, scolding, punishment) was calculated for each moth¬ er. In addition, a score for the mothers' use of physical punishment was calculated based on the frequency and severity of her spankings. Mothers with both scores at or above the sample mean are designated authoritarian in style, mothers with both scores below the mean are identified as accommodative, and the rest are "mixed." Of the 198 mothers interviewed at Time 1, 70 were judged to be accommodative, 72 authoritarian, and 56 mixed. Of the 187 mothers reinterviewed at Time 2, 71 were judged accommodative, 55 authoritarian, and 61 mixed. Studies on the reliability and validity of these measures are reported in detail else¬ where.'T At Time 1, direct observations of the mothers' child-rearing styles in the home for a subsample of these families confirmed that these mothers were using different styles consistent with the de¬ scriptions given in the home interview. Child Behavior in the Home at Age 2.From Interview Data.—During the home interviews mothers were asked to pick a number (8 indicates four or more times a day; 7 indicates two to three times a day; 6 indicates once a day; 5 indicates two or three times a week; 4 indicates once a week; 3 indicates two or three times a month; 2 indicates once a month; 1 indi¬ cates less than once a month; 0 indicates never). From a frequency score card indi¬ cating how often her child displayed a number of common 2-year-old behaviors such as being stubborn, having a temper
class differences associated with child-
Table
rearing styles. Data on child-rearing and child behavior was collected through an interview with
the mother when the child was age 2 (Time 1) and again when he or she was either age 4 or 5 (Time 2). The home interview for children not in nursery school or kinder¬
garten
at age 4
year in
(N
=
49)
was
postponed
a
effort to get concurrent measures at home and school. Of the 142 families in the original study at Time 1, a follow-up home interview was completed on 135 (95%). School data for kindergarten and first grade was collected from teachers in the fall and spring of each school year. an
etc/' These frequency scores and several other ratings made during the interview were factor analyzed and the following patterns were selected to sum¬ marize these data: 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child has frequent temper outbursts, is stub¬ born, hits peers, hits mother, gets into
outburst, mea¬
1—Demographic
things. 2. Withdrawing pattern:
child with¬ draws from strange peers and adults, cries when left with baby-sitter. 3. Approaching pattern: child wants to play with mother, wants to hug mother. Factor scores were computed using the regression equation supplied in the Statis¬ tical Package for the Social Sciences
Computer Program.
From Checklist Data. -At the end of the home interview each mother was given 20 statements about child behavior and asked to rate on a 4 point scale how descriptive each statement was of her child at that time (4 equals very descriptive; 1 equals not at all). These ratings were factor analyzed (principal components with varimax rota¬ tion) and the following three patterns were selected to summarize the data. 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child is stubborn, hits others, has temper, is disobe¬
dient, whiney. 2. Dependent-inhibited pattern: child clings to mother, is fearful, easily upset, seeks attention, shy. 3. Friendly-outgoing pattern: child is cheerful, curious, talkative, friendly, likes to be held.
Factor scores were obtained by adding up the mother's rating for the items in each factor. These patterns are similar to those iden¬ tified by others in a variety of age groups." " Correlating these two sets of
showed some overlap resistant and aggressive
scores
resistant, 0.60; dependent-inhibited and with¬ draws, r 0.31), but there were enough r
=
=
Demographic
Characteristics of
Participating
% boys Birth order of child No. of children in the
family
Mother's age Mother's educational levelf % mothers Catholic Father's social
"Student's î test
classi
=
at Time 1
(N
69)
46 1.8 2.1 29
=
66)
30 2.5 24
NS NS NS NS .001 .01
1.9
.01
1.9 2.2
3.2 52 2.3
' 2; 1; four-year college graduate [Advanced degree 4. graduate {Based on Hollingshead's two-factor index: 1 highest, or
=
school
Families
Accommodative
Authoritarian
(N
independent analy-
differences to warrant
Child-Rearing Style Characteristics
(aggressive-
one
to three years of
=
=
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
5
lowest.
co
=
3; high
Child Behavior in the Home at
Age 4 or 5.—
Following the second home interview each mother was again asked to describe her child's behavior by checking on a 3-point scale how well each of 29 statements described the child's current home behavior (2 indicates certainly applies, 1 indicates applies somewhat, and 0 indicates doesn't apply). These ratings were factored as before and the following patterns identi¬ fied: ' 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child hits other children or takes their things, is stubborn, talks back or acts fresh, is disobe¬ dient, has temper outbursts. 2. Inhibited-pattern: child is friendly, plays well with others (negatively related), acts worried, worries about many things, appears miserable or unhappy, fearful or afraid of new things or new situations, lacks self confidence. 3. Activity level: child is restless, often running about or jumping up and down, hardly ever sits still. 4. Friendly-outgoing pattern: because the 2-year-old child measures included scores for "friendly-outgoing," and "ap¬ proaching" behavior, the following four items from the parent checklist were arbi¬ trarily combined to form a similar measure for the 4- to 5-year-old age group: (1) friendly, plays well with others; (2) cooper¬ ative and easy to manage; (3) generally cheerful and happy; and (4) confident. In addition to these four scores, an overall "Symptom Score" was obtained by adding up the ratings for all the state¬ ments that described some kind of problem behavior (eats too much, resists going to bed) and an overall "Positive Functioning Score" was obtained by adding up all the ratings made on positive statements (eats well, goes to bed easily and sleeps through the night). The details of methodology and the relia¬ bility and validity of these measures has been discussed elsewhere.'- Although in¬ complete, the data available suggest that these scores do reflect the child's actual behavior in the home. Child Behavior in School.—To describe the child's school behavior, a teacher checklist was developed combining the 26-symptom items used by Rutter et al" and the 17-item emotional health inventory used by Eisenberg et al.14 Five items were added to include a few areas not covered. Teachers were asked to check on a 3-point scale how well each statement described the child's classroom behavior. These ratings were factor analyzed as described elsewhere12 and the following classroom behavior patterns identified. (Statements describ¬ ing behavior are those with loadings of 0.50 or more on each factor.) 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: fre-
quently fights with other children; bullies other children; often destroys own or other's belongings; often tells lies; not much liked by other children; is often dis¬ obedient; irritable, quick to fly off the handle; concern for others (lacks); ability to follow rules and take turns (lacks); has stolen things on one or more occasions. 2. Dependent-inhibited pattern: lead¬ ership ability in free play situations (lacks); leadership ability in organized group activ¬ ities (lacks); ability to defend own rights (lacks); active participation in organized group activities (lacks); self confidence in starting
new things (lacks); ability to play cooperative friendly way with others (lacks); tends to do things on own, rather
in
solitary; tends to new things or
be fearful and afraid of new
situations; often
worries. 3. Activity level and attention span: has poor concentration or short attention span; ability to concentrate on task at hand (lacks); persistence in completing tasks
(lacks); has speech difficulty other than stuttering; squirmy, fidgety child; ability to follow rules and take turns (lacks); often complains of pains or aches; very restless often running about or jumping, hardly ever
still.
an overall "Deficiency obtained by adding up all the negative items, and an overall "Positive Score" was obtained by adding up the positive items from the emotional health inventory. To compare the results with those of Rutter et al," an overall "Rutter Score" was obtained by adding up the symptom items from that part of the checklist. This gave a total of six scores for each child. Finally each teacher made a global rating of her opinion of the Child's Overall Functioning (1 indicates above average; 2 indicates average; 3 indicates below aver¬ age) and whether or not she thought the child had a Behavioral or Emotional Problem (0 indicates none; 1 indicates mild; 2 indicates moderate; 3 indicates severe). Information on the reliability and validi¬ ty of this checklist and ones similar to it has been summarized in a previous article and indicates that scores based on the checklist are a reasonable approximation of a child's current school functioning."
In
Score"
addition, was
RESULTS Home Behavior.—Table 2 shows the
relationships between child-rearing style and the child's behavior in the home as reported by the mother. When the
measures are made at the in time (Time 1) children from homes using authoritarian style are reported as more aggressive and same
point
resistant. However, as these children are followed up over time this rela¬ tionship tends to disappear rather than become stronger as predicted. Two years later, when the children are 4, those from authoritarian homes are no longer described as signifi¬ cantly more aggressive and resistant. In fact, there are no significant differences on any of the symptom scores except that 4-year-old boys from authoritarian homes are de¬ scribed as more restless and active. On the other hand, there are some signif¬ icant differences for boys on the measures
describing
more
positive
aspects of behavior. Accommodatively
raised boys are more "friendly and outgoing" and have a higher overall "positive functioning" score. This relationship does not hold for the girls. For the 5-year-olds there were no significant differences on any of the measures but the sample size was small. When the 4- and 5-year-old samples for each sex are combined the differences for boys are smaller but still significant. Mother Attitudes.—In spite of the finding that mothers using authori¬ tarian styles report somewhat more
difficulties with their child's behavior in the home there were no significant differences in attitudes between the two groups. Accommodative mothers had just as many concerns and identi¬ fied just as many parent-child conflict areas as authoritarian mothers. They also rated their child about the same in terms of difficulty of rearing and acutally had a somewhat greater (but not
significantly greater) tendency
to
their child as having an emotional or behavior problem (31% to 21% boys; 17% to 11% girls). School Behavior.—The results for school behavior are shown in Table 3. In kindergarten and first grade there are no significant differences for either sex on any of the measures indicating some kind of malfunction¬ ing. In terms of the more positive aspects of behavior there are no significant differences for either sex in kindergarten, but in first grade accommodatively raised girls are de¬ scribed as functioning more positively than girls raised by authoritarian see
styles.
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
Stability
of
Styles
Over Time.—One
Table 2.—Home Behavior Patterns of Children
Being
Raised
by
(Mean
±
'Authoritarian' and 'Accommodative'
SD) Child-Rearing Style
Time 1
Boys Home Behavior Patterns
Authoritarian
Age
2 A. Interview
=
32
Child-rearing Styles
Girls Authoritarian 37
Accommodative 27
Accommodative
39
measures
Aggressive-resistant Withdrawing Approaching
10.4 9.8
1.0 1.2
10.0 ± 1.2 10.2 ± 0.9
9.6 ± 1.0
10.3
±
1.0
NS NS .01
6.1
4.8 4.7 11.4
±
2.2
.05
±
2.0 1.9
NS NS
NS
± ±
10.1 9.8 9.8
±
0.7
±
1.1
±
1.0
5.4 4.8
±
1. 2.5
9.4 10.0 10.2
±
3.9 5.0 11.2
±
± ±
0.9 1.2 1.1
.01 NS NS
2.3 1.9
.01
B. Parent ratings
Aggressive-resistant Dependent-inhibited Friendly-outgoing Age
11.2
±
2.2
±
1.8 1.7
4
Total Total
22.1 ± 14.5 ± 4.4 ± 1.0 ± 1.7 ± 6.5
symptoms positive Aggressive-resistant Inhibited
Activity level Friendly-outgoing Age 5 Total symptoms Total positive Aggressive-resistant
=
19.5
±
17 6.5 2.6 1.4 1.2 1.7 15 6.0
15.2 ± 2.3 3.8 ± 1.6 1.2 0.9 ± 1.0
Inhibited
Activity level Friendly-outgoing
6.9
±
1.2
±
19.4
±
16.6
±
20 7.2 2.2
4.0 1.4
±
1.7
0.5 7.5
±
±
0.7 0.7
17.7
±
7.7
=
15.1 ± 1.4 3.3 ± 2.1 1.7 ± 1.9 0.5 ± 0.9
6.7
±
1.4
±
19.2 ± 8.7 15.4 ± 1.9
NS NS .02 .01 NS NS NS NS NS NS
3.7 ± 1.5 1.8 ± 1.5 1.0 ± 1.0 6.9 ± 1.1 17 17.8 14.6
NS NS
±
1.7
NS NS NS
2.0
NS
2.1 29 18.4 ± 8.9 15.3 ± 1.8
20 .02
±
±
3.5 0.6
6.7
1.3 10 16.4 ± 9.1 15.7 ± 3.2 2.3 ± 1.7 1.7 ± 2.2 ±
NS NS
=
8.8 ± 2.0 3.5 ± 1.7 1.2+1.4 ±
0.8 ± 0.8 6.5 ± 1.0
0.5 7.0
± ±
0.9 1.3
NS NS NS NS NS NS
"Student's f test.
possible explanation for the lack of more striking behavioral differences
in these children is that the mothers
change their approach over time. Perhaps authoritarian mothers be¬ less authoritarian accommodative mothers
come
and less
the ac¬
commodating. This possibility was investigated
in
two ways. First the differences in use of unmodified power and physical punishment at Time 2 was investi¬ gated to see if, as a group, the origi¬
nal accommodative or authoritarian mothers were still using considerably different styles. Table 4 shows Time 1 authoritarian mothers are still using considerably more unmodified power and physical punishment at Time 2 than accommodative mothers. Secondly, mothers were reclassified at Time 2 as authoritarian and accommodative using their Time 2 scores. Reclassifying mothers in this way did result in a moderate shift in sample composition with some of the original families now being identified as mixed and some of the mixed families joining one or the other of the two groups. This is not surprising since both scores had to be at or above
the mean for a mother to be classified as authoritarian and a shift of several points for either score near the mean would change the mothers classifica¬ tion. Effects of Consistent Styles.—To in¬ the possibility that larger differences between groups might emerge with a more refined classifica¬ tion system, contrast groups were redefined to include only mothers who
vestigate
identified as authoritarian or accommodative at both Time 1 and Time 2. This reclassification gave us 25 girls and 17 boys being raised with accommodative styles and 20 girls and 19 boys being raised by authoritarian styles at both points in time. The results of this new comparison, how¬ ever, were just the reverse of those found previously. For boys, the pre¬ vious differences noted are no longer significant except authoritarian boys are still described as more active than accommodative boys (P < .05). For girls, significant differences now emerge. Those raised with accommo¬ dative styles are now described as less aggressive (P < .05), less active were
(P < .05), more friendly, outgoing (P < .01), and having a higher total
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
positive
score ( < .01) than those raised with authoritarian styles. In school there were no significant differences in kindergarten behavior for either boys or girls. In first grade again there were no differences for boys but "accommodatively" raised girls still had higher overall positive scores
(P < .001).
Cross-sectional Relationships at Time 2.—Even though there was no intensi¬ fication over time of the aggressiveresistant reaction to authoritarian styles that we found at Time 1, we were curious to see if a similar crosssectional relationship would be found at Time 2. When child-rearing style
reclassified as authoritarian or accommodative on the basis of Time 2 interview data we, again, found that both boys and girls of mothers using authoritarian styles are described as more aggressive and resistant than the other children (P < .05). In addi¬ tion, accommodative boys are de¬ scribed as less active (P < .02) and accommodative girls as more friendly and outgoing (P < .01). Thus it seems that at any point in time mothers identified as having an authoritarian style will generally dewas
Table 3.—School Behavior Patterns of Children
Being
Raised
by
(Mean
±
'Authoritarian' and 'Accommodative'
SD)
Child-Rearing Style
Determined at Time 1
Boys Authoritarian 31
School Behavior Patterns
Kindergarten Total deficiency Total positive Rutter
=
7.3 22.4 ± 5.4
5.9 22.2
3.5 1.0 2.1 1.4
1.1
Inhibited
3.5
4.9 2.1 4.3
Activity level No. (%) of children with problem
1.9
2.4
score
=
9.2 5.3
1.3 3.3
Inhibited
or
±
20.6
Aggressive-resistant
"Student's f test
1
8(26)
First Grade Total deficiency Total positive Rutter score
Activity level No (%) of children problem
Girls
Accommodative 24
8.3 8.0
Aggressive-resistant
31
10.9 8.3 5.5 2.6 4.8 3.0
2.7
Child-Rearing Styles
5.9 ± 2.9 ± 1.7 ± 2.1 ± 2.'
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Authoritarian 31 4.8 ± 7.9 25.9 ± 7.3 2.5 ± 3.2 0.4 ± 1.3 2.2 ± 4.0 1.3 ± 2.7
(4)
NS
4(12)
5.9
± ±
23 8.1 ± 6.2 20.6 ± 5.6 4.6 ± 3.2
=
Accommodative = 38 6.4 ± 6.4
1.1 ± 1.6
NS NS NS NS NS NS
6(16)
NS
23 6 ± 6.4 3.7 ± 3.5 0.4 3.0 ± 3.3
35
1.1 ± 1.8 3.2 ± 2.7 2.0 ± 2.3
NS NS NS NS NS NS
03)
NS
5.9
±
21.7
±
35 ± 5.3 ± 7.1 ± 2.6 ± 0.8 ± 2.5 ± 1.7
=
4.6 25.0
7.0 6.9 3.1 ± 3.5 0.4 ± 1.1 2.1 ± 2.6 1.7 ± 2.4
2.5 0.2 2.3 0.9
NS .05 NS NS NS NS
with
3
7(23)
4(11)
NS
5(14)
'
Table 4.—Differences in Time 2
Child-Rearing Behavior of Mothers Identified as Using 'Accommodative' Child-Rearing Styles at Time 1 (Mean ± SD) Child-Rearing Style Time
Authoritarian
(N
Mother Use of unmodified power Use of physical punishment Frequency of spanking
61.2
% classified as same pattern Father Use of physical punishment
=
32)
14.6 6.8 18.8 4.0+ 1.3 56
40.6 11.1
7.0
6.1
8.9
±
Girls
Accommodative
(N
'Authoritarian'
1
Boys
Parent Child-Rearing Behavior Time 2
or
=
±
2.9
Authoritarian
(N
27) 16.5
.001
5.7 1.6
.001 .02
65 5.5
NS
=
Accommodative
37)
(N
61.8 ± 16.8 17.7 ± 6.8 4.0 1.3 51 9.4
±
=
39)
47.0 ± 14.6 10.7 4.8 2.8 1.2
.001 .001 .001
63
5.0
5.1
4.2
.001
"Student's f test.
scribe their children as more aggres¬ sive and resistant than mothers iden¬ tified as using an accommodative style. Over a period of time, however,
there are apparently enough fluctua¬ tions in both parent and child behavior so that this relationship disappears instead of becoming more intense.
COMMENT
The finding of few or no significant relationships between the way par¬ ents handle authority relationships in
the home and the child's behavior pattern in school is in agreement with Highberger,'" and Yarrow et al,2 but at variance with reports by Meyer,17
Hoffman,ls Baldwin,-" Sears
et
al,22
and Watson." Baldwin-" found that the combination of high control and low
democracy produced "a quiet, wellbehaved, nonresistant child who is at the same time socially unaggressive and restricted in his curiosity, origi¬ nality and fancifulness." The other investigators found a positive relationship between authori¬ tarian styles and/or the use of phys¬ ical punishment and the child's ag¬ gressive behavior in school. Meyer,17 using the Fels Parent Behavior Rat¬ ing Scales, found "democracy of poli¬ cy" and "readiness of explanation" negatively correlated with dominat¬ ing and/or assertive behavior by the child in school (P < .01), and "restrictiveness of regulations" and "coerciveness of suggestions" positively
correlated (P < .05) with this type of behavior. Hoffman'" found no rela-
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
tion between
a
mother's initial
use
of
"unqualified power assertion" and the
child's nursery school behavior, but he does report a positive association between the mother's "reactive" use of this type of power and the child's hostility and power assertiveness to¬ ward others. Baumrind'9 found a posi¬ tive relationship between use of authoritarian styles and aggressiveresistant behavior of the child in school for boys but not for girls, and Becker et al,-' reports a positive rela¬ tionship between the mother's use of physical punishment and aggressive behavior in school by boys and between the father's use of physical punishment and aggressive behavior in school by girls. Sears et al," however, report a positive association
between the mother's use of physical in the home and aggres¬ sive behavior in school for girls only. Watson" found differences favoring permissively reared children in test taking behavior but not in teacher's ratings of classroom behavior. Since the measures used in these various studies are not the same, it is difficult to compare them in any precise manner, but the variability of results suggest that there is no simple cause and effect relationship between a parent's child-rearing style and the behavior of his or her child. This lack of a consistent strong rela¬ tionship between child-rearing style and the child's behavior in the home and school, as reported in this study, may be related to a number of factors. We have already discussed the validi¬ ty of the measures used and the consistency of parent behavior over time. Other possibilities are that a longer follow-up period is necessary to bring out the different effects of these approaches or that the parents studied do not represent the extremes. This latter point is certainly true. All the mothers were volunteers and none
punishment
were
severely rejecting
or
neglecting
their children on the one hand or allowing them to run free in a completely undisciplined fashion on the other. However, even in this restricted sample, there are rather striking differences between the two types of approaches and these same kinds of differences are discussed in
the lay press as having great influence the behavior of children. Certainly, there is no evidence in this study that the more permissive approach being used by accommodative mothers is producing large numbers of spoiled children who cannot function appro¬ priately at home or in school. Like¬ wise, there is little evidence to support the idea that authoritarian methods are producing either robot-like marti¬ nets or children with a lot of pent-up hostility that is waiting to be unleashed on teachers or peers. On the contrary, the majority of children from both settings were functioning adequately in both home and school. Perhaps the behavior differences we are observing are more related to temperament characteristics of the child as suggested by Thomas et al,3 than to the child-rearing practices of the parents. There is now a growing body of evidence indicating that the child brings certain characteristics of his own to any type of interaction. Since most children have an easy style of temperament, they can adapt to a wide variety of child-rearing styles without developing serious problems. Those with more difficult tempera¬ ment patterns are at greater risk for developing problems with any childrearing style. Since early measures of temperament of the children in our study were not taken, this hypothesis cannot adequately be tested. The lack of a consistent strong rela¬ tionship between measures of childon
rearing style and child behavior found in this study and others indicate that child-rearing patterns by themselves don't have much value in predicting which children will develop behavior problems in the home and school.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the more permissive styles numbers of are producing large children or that spoiled undisciplined the more authoritarian approaches are producing children with overly ag¬ gressive or inhibited behavior pat¬ terns. Therefore the pediatrician should avoid imposing his or her favorite ideology on the parents of his patients and support what they are doing as long as the child is adapting well to the approach being used. When difficulties arise because of a "lack of fit" between a particular type of child and the parents' style the physician can help parents enjoy their children more by assisting them to modify their response pattern to better fit the type of child and by relieving them of guilty feelings that they alone are responsible for the way their child behaves.-3-24
The author is indebted to Drs James MacWhinney and Edwin Sumpter and their colleagues, whose interest and support made this study possible and to the mothers and teachers involved for their help in the collecting of data. Sue Smith, Mary Bruce, Jackie Davidson, Edith Halpern, and Hilda Satran provided technical assistance in obtaining and processing the interview data. Pam Tescione Foye coordinated the data collec¬ tion and maintained contact with the homes and schools as the children advanced in age.
References 1. Chamberlin RW: Approaches to child rearing: II. Their effects on child behavior. Clin Pediatr 5:688-698, 1966. 2. Yarrow M, Campbell J, Burton R: Child Rearing: An Inquiry into Research and Methods. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc, 1968. 3. Thomas A, Chess S, Birch H: Temperament and the Behavior Disorders of Children. New York, NYU Press, 1968. 4. Bell RQ: A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychol Rev 75:81-95, 1968. 5. Chamberlin RW: Authoritarian and accommodative child-rearing styles: Their relationships with the behavior patterns of 2-year-old children and with other variables. J Pediatr
84:287-293,
1974.
6. Watson G: Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline. J Psychol 44:227-249, 1957. 7. Chamberlin RW: A study of an interview method for identifying family authority patterns. Genet Psychol Monogr 80:129-148, 1969. 8. Peterson DR: Behavior problems of middle childhood. J Consul Psychol 25:205-209, 1961. 9. Behar L, Stringfield S: A behavior rating
scale for the
610, 1974.
preschool child.
Dev
Psychol
10:601\x=req-\
10. Kohn M, Rosman B: A social competence scale and symptom check list for the preschool child. Dev Psychol 6:430-444, 1972. 11. Peterson DR, Becker W, Shoemaker D, et al: Child behavior problems and parental attitudes. Child Dev 32:151-162, 1961. 12. Chamberlin RW: Can we identify a group of children at age 2 who are at high risk for the development of behavior, or emotional problems in kindergarten and 1st grade? Pediatrics 59(suppl):971-981, 1977. 13. Rutter M, Tizard J, Whitmore K: Education, Health and Behavior. London, Longman, 1970. 14. Eisenberg L, Landowne E, Wilner D, et al: The use of teacher ratings in a mental health study: A method for measuring the effectiveness of therapeutic nursery program. Am J Pub Health 52:18-28, 1962. 15. Chamberlin RW: The use of teacher checklist to identify children at risk for later behavioral and emotional problems. Am J Dis Child 130:141-145, 1976. 16. Highberger R: The relationship be-
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
tween maternal behavior and the child's early adjustment to nursery school. Child Dev 26:49-61,
1955. 17.
Meyer CT: The assertive behavior of children as related to parent behavior. J Home Economics 39:77-80, 1947. 18. Hoffman ML: Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Dev 34:573\x=req-\ 588, 1963. 19. Baumrind D: Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol Monogr 4:1-103, 1971. 20. Baldwin AL: Socialization and the parent child relationship. Child Dev 19:127-136, 1948. 21. Becker W, Peterson DR, Luria Z, et al: Relations of factors derived from parent interview ratings to behavior problems of 5-year-olds. Child Dev 33:509-535, 1962. 22. Sears R, Maccoby E, Levine H: Patterns of Child Rearing. New York, Row, Peterson and Co, 1957. 23. Chamberlin RW: Early recognition and modification of vicious circle parent-child relationships. Clin Pediatr 6:469-479, 1967. 24. Chamberlin RW: Management of preschool behavior problems. Pediatr Clin North Am 21:33-47, 1974.
Chamberlin, MD
\s=b\ We Investigate the hypothesis that "authoritarian" styles of child rearing will lead to more home and school problems than will "accommodative" styles. One hundred thirty-five children have been followed up from age 2 into first grade. Follow-up observations show no significant differences between groups on any
of the scores indicating malfunctioning for boys or girls at home or school. However, the home behavior of boys being raised with accommodative styles was described in more positive terms by their mothers than those raised with authoritarian styles. The accommodatively raised girls were described in more positive terms by their first grade teachers. We found no evidence in this study that the permissive style is producing large numbers of "spoiled brats" nor that the authoritarian styles are producing large numbers of overly aggressive or inhibited children. The way parents handle authority relationships is not sufficiently predictive of later problems to warrant any widespread attempts by physicians to change them. The physician should respect individual differences in child-rearing style and only intervene where there is substantial evidence that a particular approach is having a harmful effect. (Am J Dis Child 132:155-160, 1978)
effort to
preventaIn tive approachdevelop development an
a
to the
of behavior and emotional problems in the early school aged child, a search for "high risk" child rearing methods has been undertaken so that when detected in the preschool age period, the physician would be in a strategic position to intervene and thereby prevent the development of later problems. A review of the literature suggested that authoritarian ap¬ proaches to child rearing might be From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Reprint requests to University of Rochester, Department of Pediatrics, Box 666, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642 (Dr Chamberlin).
such a "high risk" method.1 Studies of leadership styles have consistently linked "authoritarian" approaches (frequent use of orders, commands, attacks on self esteem, threats, and punishment to control behavior) with higher levels of subor¬ dinate resistance, less open communi¬ cation, greater peer hostility and less self reliance than "accommodative" styles (frequent use of requests, providing objective reasons for change, offering alternatives).' Al¬ though most of these studies have not been carried out in family settings, the few that have, generally report results consistent with these predic¬ tions. On the other hand, the lay public and some physicians appear much more concerned that parents who adopt an accommodative style will become "overpermissive" and produce children with spoiled, undisciplined behavior. There is some evidence in the group dynamics literature indi¬ cating that, at times, accommodative leadership styles do degenerate into "laissez-faire" patterns wTith poor re¬ sults.' Recently, however, the authors of a review of child-rearing studies con¬ cluded that there was no strong evidence to suggest that any one pattern led to any one type of child behavior.2 Other investigators have presented evidence to support the hypothesis that many of the behav¬ ioral differences noted in children are at least as much related to tempera¬ ment characteristics that can be recognized in the early months of life as
they are to child-rearing practices.
'
These authors conclude that behavior problems arise from a "lack of fit" between a particular type of child and the child-rearing pattern adopted by the parents rather than from any style of rearing by itself. Some inves¬ tigators have even suggested that the
type of child produces the childrearing pattern rather than vice versa.4
These differences in thinking about the cause of behavioral problems in young children have important impli¬ cations for the practice of pediatrics. If child-rearing styles by them¬ selves have considerable influence on the behavior patterns of young chil¬ dren the physician should attempt to
identify "high-risk" patterns as soon possible and alter them. On the other hand, if child-rearing styles have relatively little influence on the development of future problems the pediatrician should respect family styles and not try to impose his or her own child-rearing values on the par¬ ents of his patients. Any intervention as
would then be based on current evidence of a harmful effect on a child rather than on ideologic grounds or on the prediction of future problems. In a recent paper from this study the relationships between authoritar¬ ian and accommodative child-rearing styles and 2-year-old behavior pat¬ terns at one point in time were reported." While there were no strong relationships between the mother's approach to handling authority rela¬ tionships and the child's behavior pattern, there was a modest but consistent correlation between ag¬ gressive-resistant child behavior and the use of authoritarian methods of child rearing. The original report involved 34 accommodative and 38 authoritarian families. A similar rela¬ tionship was found with a new sample of 36 accommodative and 34 authori¬ tarian families the next year. All these children have now been followed up through kindergarten and first
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
grade.
The purpose of this paper is to report the relationships between these two
contrasting child-rearing styles
and the later home and school behav¬ ior of these children. The following specific hypothesis was tested: Children being raised with authoritarian child-rearing styles will
display more "aggressive-resistant" and "dependent-inhibited" behavior in the home and school than children raised with accommodative styles.
METHODS
Population, Sample, and Design The study was designed to observe
a
group of children from 2 years of age through entry into first grade. The participants were recruited from two pediatrie group practices located in suburban Rochester. The major reason for restricting the sample to this largely middle class population is that families using accommodative styles are hard to find in other social strata. In fact, even with these middle class families, it took considerable effort to find enough families using predominantly an accommodative style. Similar difficulties were encountered by Watson," which suggests that our society is not as permissive as we are sometimes led to believe. Additional sam¬ ple restrictions to reduce influences on child behavior other than child-rearing style were that (1) only children between the ages of 21 and 27 months at the time of the first home interview were included; (2) the children had to be free from any chronic illness or disability; and (3) the families had to have both parents present in the household, be economically self suffi¬ cient, and have mothers working as full time housewives or less than 20 hours a week at outside jobs. Finally, each family was thought to be free of gross emotional or marital problems by the family pediatri¬ cian at the time of entry into the study. Details of sample recruitment are described in another publication."1 Demo¬ graphic characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Even with this restricted sample there are educational, religious, and social '
Measures
Child-rearing Styles.—Details of this
sure have been described in previous publi¬ cations.'; In brief, mothers were asked to describe their initial and follow-up responses to a number of behaviors typical for the child's age. These responses were coded according to the type of power used by the mother to influence the child's behavior. The percentage of situations handled with "unmodified" power (use of orders without reasons, threats, scolding, punishment) was calculated for each moth¬ er. In addition, a score for the mothers' use of physical punishment was calculated based on the frequency and severity of her spankings. Mothers with both scores at or above the sample mean are designated authoritarian in style, mothers with both scores below the mean are identified as accommodative, and the rest are "mixed." Of the 198 mothers interviewed at Time 1, 70 were judged to be accommodative, 72 authoritarian, and 56 mixed. Of the 187 mothers reinterviewed at Time 2, 71 were judged accommodative, 55 authoritarian, and 61 mixed. Studies on the reliability and validity of these measures are reported in detail else¬ where.'T At Time 1, direct observations of the mothers' child-rearing styles in the home for a subsample of these families confirmed that these mothers were using different styles consistent with the de¬ scriptions given in the home interview. Child Behavior in the Home at Age 2.From Interview Data.—During the home interviews mothers were asked to pick a number (8 indicates four or more times a day; 7 indicates two to three times a day; 6 indicates once a day; 5 indicates two or three times a week; 4 indicates once a week; 3 indicates two or three times a month; 2 indicates once a month; 1 indi¬ cates less than once a month; 0 indicates never). From a frequency score card indi¬ cating how often her child displayed a number of common 2-year-old behaviors such as being stubborn, having a temper
class differences associated with child-
Table
rearing styles. Data on child-rearing and child behavior was collected through an interview with
the mother when the child was age 2 (Time 1) and again when he or she was either age 4 or 5 (Time 2). The home interview for children not in nursery school or kinder¬
garten
at age 4
year in
(N
=
49)
was
postponed
a
effort to get concurrent measures at home and school. Of the 142 families in the original study at Time 1, a follow-up home interview was completed on 135 (95%). School data for kindergarten and first grade was collected from teachers in the fall and spring of each school year. an
etc/' These frequency scores and several other ratings made during the interview were factor analyzed and the following patterns were selected to sum¬ marize these data: 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child has frequent temper outbursts, is stub¬ born, hits peers, hits mother, gets into
outburst, mea¬
1—Demographic
things. 2. Withdrawing pattern:
child with¬ draws from strange peers and adults, cries when left with baby-sitter. 3. Approaching pattern: child wants to play with mother, wants to hug mother. Factor scores were computed using the regression equation supplied in the Statis¬ tical Package for the Social Sciences
Computer Program.
From Checklist Data. -At the end of the home interview each mother was given 20 statements about child behavior and asked to rate on a 4 point scale how descriptive each statement was of her child at that time (4 equals very descriptive; 1 equals not at all). These ratings were factor analyzed (principal components with varimax rota¬ tion) and the following three patterns were selected to summarize the data. 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child is stubborn, hits others, has temper, is disobe¬
dient, whiney. 2. Dependent-inhibited pattern: child clings to mother, is fearful, easily upset, seeks attention, shy. 3. Friendly-outgoing pattern: child is cheerful, curious, talkative, friendly, likes to be held.
Factor scores were obtained by adding up the mother's rating for the items in each factor. These patterns are similar to those iden¬ tified by others in a variety of age groups." " Correlating these two sets of
showed some overlap resistant and aggressive
scores
resistant, 0.60; dependent-inhibited and with¬ draws, r 0.31), but there were enough r
=
=
Demographic
Characteristics of
Participating
% boys Birth order of child No. of children in the
family
Mother's age Mother's educational levelf % mothers Catholic Father's social
"Student's î test
classi
=
at Time 1
(N
69)
46 1.8 2.1 29
=
66)
30 2.5 24
NS NS NS NS .001 .01
1.9
.01
1.9 2.2
3.2 52 2.3
' 2; 1; four-year college graduate [Advanced degree 4. graduate {Based on Hollingshead's two-factor index: 1 highest, or
=
school
Families
Accommodative
Authoritarian
(N
independent analy-
differences to warrant
Child-Rearing Style Characteristics
(aggressive-
one
to three years of
=
=
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
5
lowest.
co
=
3; high
Child Behavior in the Home at
Age 4 or 5.—
Following the second home interview each mother was again asked to describe her child's behavior by checking on a 3-point scale how well each of 29 statements described the child's current home behavior (2 indicates certainly applies, 1 indicates applies somewhat, and 0 indicates doesn't apply). These ratings were factored as before and the following patterns identi¬ fied: ' 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: child hits other children or takes their things, is stubborn, talks back or acts fresh, is disobe¬ dient, has temper outbursts. 2. Inhibited-pattern: child is friendly, plays well with others (negatively related), acts worried, worries about many things, appears miserable or unhappy, fearful or afraid of new things or new situations, lacks self confidence. 3. Activity level: child is restless, often running about or jumping up and down, hardly ever sits still. 4. Friendly-outgoing pattern: because the 2-year-old child measures included scores for "friendly-outgoing," and "ap¬ proaching" behavior, the following four items from the parent checklist were arbi¬ trarily combined to form a similar measure for the 4- to 5-year-old age group: (1) friendly, plays well with others; (2) cooper¬ ative and easy to manage; (3) generally cheerful and happy; and (4) confident. In addition to these four scores, an overall "Symptom Score" was obtained by adding up the ratings for all the state¬ ments that described some kind of problem behavior (eats too much, resists going to bed) and an overall "Positive Functioning Score" was obtained by adding up all the ratings made on positive statements (eats well, goes to bed easily and sleeps through the night). The details of methodology and the relia¬ bility and validity of these measures has been discussed elsewhere.'- Although in¬ complete, the data available suggest that these scores do reflect the child's actual behavior in the home. Child Behavior in School.—To describe the child's school behavior, a teacher checklist was developed combining the 26-symptom items used by Rutter et al" and the 17-item emotional health inventory used by Eisenberg et al.14 Five items were added to include a few areas not covered. Teachers were asked to check on a 3-point scale how well each statement described the child's classroom behavior. These ratings were factor analyzed as described elsewhere12 and the following classroom behavior patterns identified. (Statements describ¬ ing behavior are those with loadings of 0.50 or more on each factor.) 1. Aggressive-resistant pattern: fre-
quently fights with other children; bullies other children; often destroys own or other's belongings; often tells lies; not much liked by other children; is often dis¬ obedient; irritable, quick to fly off the handle; concern for others (lacks); ability to follow rules and take turns (lacks); has stolen things on one or more occasions. 2. Dependent-inhibited pattern: lead¬ ership ability in free play situations (lacks); leadership ability in organized group activ¬ ities (lacks); ability to defend own rights (lacks); active participation in organized group activities (lacks); self confidence in starting
new things (lacks); ability to play cooperative friendly way with others (lacks); tends to do things on own, rather
in
solitary; tends to new things or
be fearful and afraid of new
situations; often
worries. 3. Activity level and attention span: has poor concentration or short attention span; ability to concentrate on task at hand (lacks); persistence in completing tasks
(lacks); has speech difficulty other than stuttering; squirmy, fidgety child; ability to follow rules and take turns (lacks); often complains of pains or aches; very restless often running about or jumping, hardly ever
still.
an overall "Deficiency obtained by adding up all the negative items, and an overall "Positive Score" was obtained by adding up the positive items from the emotional health inventory. To compare the results with those of Rutter et al," an overall "Rutter Score" was obtained by adding up the symptom items from that part of the checklist. This gave a total of six scores for each child. Finally each teacher made a global rating of her opinion of the Child's Overall Functioning (1 indicates above average; 2 indicates average; 3 indicates below aver¬ age) and whether or not she thought the child had a Behavioral or Emotional Problem (0 indicates none; 1 indicates mild; 2 indicates moderate; 3 indicates severe). Information on the reliability and validi¬ ty of this checklist and ones similar to it has been summarized in a previous article and indicates that scores based on the checklist are a reasonable approximation of a child's current school functioning."
In
Score"
addition, was
RESULTS Home Behavior.—Table 2 shows the
relationships between child-rearing style and the child's behavior in the home as reported by the mother. When the
measures are made at the in time (Time 1) children from homes using authoritarian style are reported as more aggressive and same
point
resistant. However, as these children are followed up over time this rela¬ tionship tends to disappear rather than become stronger as predicted. Two years later, when the children are 4, those from authoritarian homes are no longer described as signifi¬ cantly more aggressive and resistant. In fact, there are no significant differences on any of the symptom scores except that 4-year-old boys from authoritarian homes are de¬ scribed as more restless and active. On the other hand, there are some signif¬ icant differences for boys on the measures
describing
more
positive
aspects of behavior. Accommodatively
raised boys are more "friendly and outgoing" and have a higher overall "positive functioning" score. This relationship does not hold for the girls. For the 5-year-olds there were no significant differences on any of the measures but the sample size was small. When the 4- and 5-year-old samples for each sex are combined the differences for boys are smaller but still significant. Mother Attitudes.—In spite of the finding that mothers using authori¬ tarian styles report somewhat more
difficulties with their child's behavior in the home there were no significant differences in attitudes between the two groups. Accommodative mothers had just as many concerns and identi¬ fied just as many parent-child conflict areas as authoritarian mothers. They also rated their child about the same in terms of difficulty of rearing and acutally had a somewhat greater (but not
significantly greater) tendency
to
their child as having an emotional or behavior problem (31% to 21% boys; 17% to 11% girls). School Behavior.—The results for school behavior are shown in Table 3. In kindergarten and first grade there are no significant differences for either sex on any of the measures indicating some kind of malfunction¬ ing. In terms of the more positive aspects of behavior there are no significant differences for either sex in kindergarten, but in first grade accommodatively raised girls are de¬ scribed as functioning more positively than girls raised by authoritarian see
styles.
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
Stability
of
Styles
Over Time.—One
Table 2.—Home Behavior Patterns of Children
Being
Raised
by
(Mean
±
'Authoritarian' and 'Accommodative'
SD) Child-Rearing Style
Time 1
Boys Home Behavior Patterns
Authoritarian
Age
2 A. Interview
=
32
Child-rearing Styles
Girls Authoritarian 37
Accommodative 27
Accommodative
39
measures
Aggressive-resistant Withdrawing Approaching
10.4 9.8
1.0 1.2
10.0 ± 1.2 10.2 ± 0.9
9.6 ± 1.0
10.3
±
1.0
NS NS .01
6.1
4.8 4.7 11.4
±
2.2
.05
±
2.0 1.9
NS NS
NS
± ±
10.1 9.8 9.8
±
0.7
±
1.1
±
1.0
5.4 4.8
±
1. 2.5
9.4 10.0 10.2
±
3.9 5.0 11.2
±
± ±
0.9 1.2 1.1
.01 NS NS
2.3 1.9
.01
B. Parent ratings
Aggressive-resistant Dependent-inhibited Friendly-outgoing Age
11.2
±
2.2
±
1.8 1.7
4
Total Total
22.1 ± 14.5 ± 4.4 ± 1.0 ± 1.7 ± 6.5
symptoms positive Aggressive-resistant Inhibited
Activity level Friendly-outgoing Age 5 Total symptoms Total positive Aggressive-resistant
=
19.5
±
17 6.5 2.6 1.4 1.2 1.7 15 6.0
15.2 ± 2.3 3.8 ± 1.6 1.2 0.9 ± 1.0
Inhibited
Activity level Friendly-outgoing
6.9
±
1.2
±
19.4
±
16.6
±
20 7.2 2.2
4.0 1.4
±
1.7
0.5 7.5
±
±
0.7 0.7
17.7
±
7.7
=
15.1 ± 1.4 3.3 ± 2.1 1.7 ± 1.9 0.5 ± 0.9
6.7
±
1.4
±
19.2 ± 8.7 15.4 ± 1.9
NS NS .02 .01 NS NS NS NS NS NS
3.7 ± 1.5 1.8 ± 1.5 1.0 ± 1.0 6.9 ± 1.1 17 17.8 14.6
NS NS
±
1.7
NS NS NS
2.0
NS
2.1 29 18.4 ± 8.9 15.3 ± 1.8
20 .02
±
±
3.5 0.6
6.7
1.3 10 16.4 ± 9.1 15.7 ± 3.2 2.3 ± 1.7 1.7 ± 2.2 ±
NS NS
=
8.8 ± 2.0 3.5 ± 1.7 1.2+1.4 ±
0.8 ± 0.8 6.5 ± 1.0
0.5 7.0
± ±
0.9 1.3
NS NS NS NS NS NS
"Student's f test.
possible explanation for the lack of more striking behavioral differences
in these children is that the mothers
change their approach over time. Perhaps authoritarian mothers be¬ less authoritarian accommodative mothers
come
and less
the ac¬
commodating. This possibility was investigated
in
two ways. First the differences in use of unmodified power and physical punishment at Time 2 was investi¬ gated to see if, as a group, the origi¬
nal accommodative or authoritarian mothers were still using considerably different styles. Table 4 shows Time 1 authoritarian mothers are still using considerably more unmodified power and physical punishment at Time 2 than accommodative mothers. Secondly, mothers were reclassified at Time 2 as authoritarian and accommodative using their Time 2 scores. Reclassifying mothers in this way did result in a moderate shift in sample composition with some of the original families now being identified as mixed and some of the mixed families joining one or the other of the two groups. This is not surprising since both scores had to be at or above
the mean for a mother to be classified as authoritarian and a shift of several points for either score near the mean would change the mothers classifica¬ tion. Effects of Consistent Styles.—To in¬ the possibility that larger differences between groups might emerge with a more refined classifica¬ tion system, contrast groups were redefined to include only mothers who
vestigate
identified as authoritarian or accommodative at both Time 1 and Time 2. This reclassification gave us 25 girls and 17 boys being raised with accommodative styles and 20 girls and 19 boys being raised by authoritarian styles at both points in time. The results of this new comparison, how¬ ever, were just the reverse of those found previously. For boys, the pre¬ vious differences noted are no longer significant except authoritarian boys are still described as more active than accommodative boys (P < .05). For girls, significant differences now emerge. Those raised with accommo¬ dative styles are now described as less aggressive (P < .05), less active were
(P < .05), more friendly, outgoing (P < .01), and having a higher total
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
positive
score ( < .01) than those raised with authoritarian styles. In school there were no significant differences in kindergarten behavior for either boys or girls. In first grade again there were no differences for boys but "accommodatively" raised girls still had higher overall positive scores
(P < .001).
Cross-sectional Relationships at Time 2.—Even though there was no intensi¬ fication over time of the aggressiveresistant reaction to authoritarian styles that we found at Time 1, we were curious to see if a similar crosssectional relationship would be found at Time 2. When child-rearing style
reclassified as authoritarian or accommodative on the basis of Time 2 interview data we, again, found that both boys and girls of mothers using authoritarian styles are described as more aggressive and resistant than the other children (P < .05). In addi¬ tion, accommodative boys are de¬ scribed as less active (P < .02) and accommodative girls as more friendly and outgoing (P < .01). Thus it seems that at any point in time mothers identified as having an authoritarian style will generally dewas
Table 3.—School Behavior Patterns of Children
Being
Raised
by
(Mean
±
'Authoritarian' and 'Accommodative'
SD)
Child-Rearing Style
Determined at Time 1
Boys Authoritarian 31
School Behavior Patterns
Kindergarten Total deficiency Total positive Rutter
=
7.3 22.4 ± 5.4
5.9 22.2
3.5 1.0 2.1 1.4
1.1
Inhibited
3.5
4.9 2.1 4.3
Activity level No. (%) of children with problem
1.9
2.4
score
=
9.2 5.3
1.3 3.3
Inhibited
or
±
20.6
Aggressive-resistant
"Student's f test
1
8(26)
First Grade Total deficiency Total positive Rutter score
Activity level No (%) of children problem
Girls
Accommodative 24
8.3 8.0
Aggressive-resistant
31
10.9 8.3 5.5 2.6 4.8 3.0
2.7
Child-Rearing Styles
5.9 ± 2.9 ± 1.7 ± 2.1 ± 2.'
NS NS NS NS NS NS
Authoritarian 31 4.8 ± 7.9 25.9 ± 7.3 2.5 ± 3.2 0.4 ± 1.3 2.2 ± 4.0 1.3 ± 2.7
(4)
NS
4(12)
5.9
± ±
23 8.1 ± 6.2 20.6 ± 5.6 4.6 ± 3.2
=
Accommodative = 38 6.4 ± 6.4
1.1 ± 1.6
NS NS NS NS NS NS
6(16)
NS
23 6 ± 6.4 3.7 ± 3.5 0.4 3.0 ± 3.3
35
1.1 ± 1.8 3.2 ± 2.7 2.0 ± 2.3
NS NS NS NS NS NS
03)
NS
5.9
±
21.7
±
35 ± 5.3 ± 7.1 ± 2.6 ± 0.8 ± 2.5 ± 1.7
=
4.6 25.0
7.0 6.9 3.1 ± 3.5 0.4 ± 1.1 2.1 ± 2.6 1.7 ± 2.4
2.5 0.2 2.3 0.9
NS .05 NS NS NS NS
with
3
7(23)
4(11)
NS
5(14)
'
Table 4.—Differences in Time 2
Child-Rearing Behavior of Mothers Identified as Using 'Accommodative' Child-Rearing Styles at Time 1 (Mean ± SD) Child-Rearing Style Time
Authoritarian
(N
Mother Use of unmodified power Use of physical punishment Frequency of spanking
61.2
% classified as same pattern Father Use of physical punishment
=
32)
14.6 6.8 18.8 4.0+ 1.3 56
40.6 11.1
7.0
6.1
8.9
±
Girls
Accommodative
(N
'Authoritarian'
1
Boys
Parent Child-Rearing Behavior Time 2
or
=
±
2.9
Authoritarian
(N
27) 16.5
.001
5.7 1.6
.001 .02
65 5.5
NS
=
Accommodative
37)
(N
61.8 ± 16.8 17.7 ± 6.8 4.0 1.3 51 9.4
±
=
39)
47.0 ± 14.6 10.7 4.8 2.8 1.2
.001 .001 .001
63
5.0
5.1
4.2
.001
"Student's f test.
scribe their children as more aggres¬ sive and resistant than mothers iden¬ tified as using an accommodative style. Over a period of time, however,
there are apparently enough fluctua¬ tions in both parent and child behavior so that this relationship disappears instead of becoming more intense.
COMMENT
The finding of few or no significant relationships between the way par¬ ents handle authority relationships in
the home and the child's behavior pattern in school is in agreement with Highberger,'" and Yarrow et al,2 but at variance with reports by Meyer,17
Hoffman,ls Baldwin,-" Sears
et
al,22
and Watson." Baldwin-" found that the combination of high control and low
democracy produced "a quiet, wellbehaved, nonresistant child who is at the same time socially unaggressive and restricted in his curiosity, origi¬ nality and fancifulness." The other investigators found a positive relationship between authori¬ tarian styles and/or the use of phys¬ ical punishment and the child's ag¬ gressive behavior in school. Meyer,17 using the Fels Parent Behavior Rat¬ ing Scales, found "democracy of poli¬ cy" and "readiness of explanation" negatively correlated with dominat¬ ing and/or assertive behavior by the child in school (P < .01), and "restrictiveness of regulations" and "coerciveness of suggestions" positively
correlated (P < .05) with this type of behavior. Hoffman'" found no rela-
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
tion between
a
mother's initial
use
of
"unqualified power assertion" and the
child's nursery school behavior, but he does report a positive association between the mother's "reactive" use of this type of power and the child's hostility and power assertiveness to¬ ward others. Baumrind'9 found a posi¬ tive relationship between use of authoritarian styles and aggressiveresistant behavior of the child in school for boys but not for girls, and Becker et al,-' reports a positive rela¬ tionship between the mother's use of physical punishment and aggressive behavior in school by boys and between the father's use of physical punishment and aggressive behavior in school by girls. Sears et al," however, report a positive association
between the mother's use of physical in the home and aggres¬ sive behavior in school for girls only. Watson" found differences favoring permissively reared children in test taking behavior but not in teacher's ratings of classroom behavior. Since the measures used in these various studies are not the same, it is difficult to compare them in any precise manner, but the variability of results suggest that there is no simple cause and effect relationship between a parent's child-rearing style and the behavior of his or her child. This lack of a consistent strong rela¬ tionship between child-rearing style and the child's behavior in the home and school, as reported in this study, may be related to a number of factors. We have already discussed the validi¬ ty of the measures used and the consistency of parent behavior over time. Other possibilities are that a longer follow-up period is necessary to bring out the different effects of these approaches or that the parents studied do not represent the extremes. This latter point is certainly true. All the mothers were volunteers and none
punishment
were
severely rejecting
or
neglecting
their children on the one hand or allowing them to run free in a completely undisciplined fashion on the other. However, even in this restricted sample, there are rather striking differences between the two types of approaches and these same kinds of differences are discussed in
the lay press as having great influence the behavior of children. Certainly, there is no evidence in this study that the more permissive approach being used by accommodative mothers is producing large numbers of spoiled children who cannot function appro¬ priately at home or in school. Like¬ wise, there is little evidence to support the idea that authoritarian methods are producing either robot-like marti¬ nets or children with a lot of pent-up hostility that is waiting to be unleashed on teachers or peers. On the contrary, the majority of children from both settings were functioning adequately in both home and school. Perhaps the behavior differences we are observing are more related to temperament characteristics of the child as suggested by Thomas et al,3 than to the child-rearing practices of the parents. There is now a growing body of evidence indicating that the child brings certain characteristics of his own to any type of interaction. Since most children have an easy style of temperament, they can adapt to a wide variety of child-rearing styles without developing serious problems. Those with more difficult tempera¬ ment patterns are at greater risk for developing problems with any childrearing style. Since early measures of temperament of the children in our study were not taken, this hypothesis cannot adequately be tested. The lack of a consistent strong rela¬ tionship between measures of childon
rearing style and child behavior found in this study and others indicate that child-rearing patterns by themselves don't have much value in predicting which children will develop behavior problems in the home and school.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the more permissive styles numbers of are producing large children or that spoiled undisciplined the more authoritarian approaches are producing children with overly ag¬ gressive or inhibited behavior pat¬ terns. Therefore the pediatrician should avoid imposing his or her favorite ideology on the parents of his patients and support what they are doing as long as the child is adapting well to the approach being used. When difficulties arise because of a "lack of fit" between a particular type of child and the parents' style the physician can help parents enjoy their children more by assisting them to modify their response pattern to better fit the type of child and by relieving them of guilty feelings that they alone are responsible for the way their child behaves.-3-24
The author is indebted to Drs James MacWhinney and Edwin Sumpter and their colleagues, whose interest and support made this study possible and to the mothers and teachers involved for their help in the collecting of data. Sue Smith, Mary Bruce, Jackie Davidson, Edith Halpern, and Hilda Satran provided technical assistance in obtaining and processing the interview data. Pam Tescione Foye coordinated the data collec¬ tion and maintained contact with the homes and schools as the children advanced in age.
References 1. Chamberlin RW: Approaches to child rearing: II. Their effects on child behavior. Clin Pediatr 5:688-698, 1966. 2. Yarrow M, Campbell J, Burton R: Child Rearing: An Inquiry into Research and Methods. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc, 1968. 3. Thomas A, Chess S, Birch H: Temperament and the Behavior Disorders of Children. New York, NYU Press, 1968. 4. Bell RQ: A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychol Rev 75:81-95, 1968. 5. Chamberlin RW: Authoritarian and accommodative child-rearing styles: Their relationships with the behavior patterns of 2-year-old children and with other variables. J Pediatr
84:287-293,
1974.
6. Watson G: Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline. J Psychol 44:227-249, 1957. 7. Chamberlin RW: A study of an interview method for identifying family authority patterns. Genet Psychol Monogr 80:129-148, 1969. 8. Peterson DR: Behavior problems of middle childhood. J Consul Psychol 25:205-209, 1961. 9. Behar L, Stringfield S: A behavior rating
scale for the
610, 1974.
preschool child.
Dev
Psychol
10:601\x=req-\
10. Kohn M, Rosman B: A social competence scale and symptom check list for the preschool child. Dev Psychol 6:430-444, 1972. 11. Peterson DR, Becker W, Shoemaker D, et al: Child behavior problems and parental attitudes. Child Dev 32:151-162, 1961. 12. Chamberlin RW: Can we identify a group of children at age 2 who are at high risk for the development of behavior, or emotional problems in kindergarten and 1st grade? Pediatrics 59(suppl):971-981, 1977. 13. Rutter M, Tizard J, Whitmore K: Education, Health and Behavior. London, Longman, 1970. 14. Eisenberg L, Landowne E, Wilner D, et al: The use of teacher ratings in a mental health study: A method for measuring the effectiveness of therapeutic nursery program. Am J Pub Health 52:18-28, 1962. 15. Chamberlin RW: The use of teacher checklist to identify children at risk for later behavioral and emotional problems. Am J Dis Child 130:141-145, 1976. 16. Highberger R: The relationship be-
Downloaded From: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/ by a Monash University Library User on 06/18/2015
tween maternal behavior and the child's early adjustment to nursery school. Child Dev 26:49-61,
1955. 17.
Meyer CT: The assertive behavior of children as related to parent behavior. J Home Economics 39:77-80, 1947. 18. Hoffman ML: Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Dev 34:573\x=req-\ 588, 1963. 19. Baumrind D: Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol Monogr 4:1-103, 1971. 20. Baldwin AL: Socialization and the parent child relationship. Child Dev 19:127-136, 1948. 21. Becker W, Peterson DR, Luria Z, et al: Relations of factors derived from parent interview ratings to behavior problems of 5-year-olds. Child Dev 33:509-535, 1962. 22. Sears R, Maccoby E, Levine H: Patterns of Child Rearing. New York, Row, Peterson and Co, 1957. 23. Chamberlin RW: Early recognition and modification of vicious circle parent-child relationships. Clin Pediatr 6:469-479, 1967. 24. Chamberlin RW: Management of preschool behavior problems. Pediatr Clin North Am 21:33-47, 1974.
