Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs

1 Current research on parenting styles , dimensions , and beliefsJudith G SmetanaFor decades, parenting has been characterized in terms ofbroad global styles , with authoritative parenting seen as mostbeneficial for children s development. Concerns with greatersensitivity to cultural and contextual variations have led togreater specificity in defining parenting in terms of differentparenting dimensions and greater consideration of the role ofparenting beliefs in moderating links between parenting andadjustment. New research includes domain-specific modelsthat describe parents as flexibly deploying different practicesdepending on their goals, children s needs, and the typesof behaviors towards which parenting is directed. Thesetrends are described, and directions for future researchare of Clinical & Social Sciences in Psychology, Meliora Hall,RC 270266, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USAC orresponding author: Smetana, Judith Opinion in Psychology2017,15:19 25 This review comes from a themed issue onParentingEdited byMarinus H Van IJzendoornandMarian J Bakermans-KranenburgFor a complete overview see theIssueand theEditorialAvailable online 20th February 2017 2017 Elsevier Ltd.

2 All rights significant progress in understanding parentingand its effects for children s development, there areongoing debates about how best to conceptualize andmeasure it. For decades, parenting was characterized interms of global, consistent, and stable parenting , studies examining variations along differentparenting dimensions now predominate, due to concernsabout whether styles accurately capture contextual varia-tions and have the same meaning in different concerns also have led to new, more granularand domain-specific models that are more flexible andsituational. These issues are discussed below, alongwith recommendations for future directions in stylesDescriptionBaumrind s influential model of parenting stylesdescribes parenting as a gestalt of integrated parentingpractices, best studied using pattern-based approaches[1,2]. Her original description of the authoritative, author-itarian, and permissive parenting styles has been recon-ceptualized in terms of two orthogonal dimensions ofdemandingness and responsiveness, leading to the addi-tion of a fourth, rejecting-neglecting style [3].

3 Proponentsclaim that authoritative parenting , where parents arehighly responsive to their children s needs but also setreasonable limits and demand mature behavior, is mostbeneficial for children s and adolescents developmentacross contexts and cultures [2,4,5]. This conclusionremains controversial, however [6]. In response to cri-tiques, Baumrind and colleagues [7,8 ] have refined thedefinition of authoritative parenting and clarified thedistinction between detrimental ( , coercive) and posi-tive ( , confrontive) forms of parental power styles were originally conceptualized as trans-actionally associated with social competence, but studieshave mostly focused on parent-to-child effects. Advancesin statistically modeling have led more rigorous tests ofbidirectionality. One recent study found that adolescentbehavior had a much stronger effect on parenting stylesthan the reverse [9], whereas another [10 ] found thateffects varied by parenting style. Significant child effectswere found for permissive-indulgent parenting , no bidi-rectional effects were found for authoritative parenting ,and bidirectional effects were observed for mother butnot child-rated authoritarian influencesAuthoritarian parenting is widespread in non-Westerncultures and among lower socioeconomic status (SES)and ethnic/racial minority parents in the Moreover,these factors may converge, as immigrant and ethnicminority families often live in poor communities charac-terized by dangerous neighborhoods, where authoritarianparenting may have protective effects [11 ].

4 This has ledto questions about whether authoritarian parenting isnecessarily maladaptive in some contexts and to the claimthat parenting must be assessed in terms of particularcultural values and indigenous concepts [12].For instance, although Chinese parenting is oftendescribed as authoritarian, punitive, and reflectingConfucian, child-centered, and beneficial concerns withstrictness and child training [12]. Chinese mothers alsohave been popularly described as tiger moms [13] whoAvailable online Opinion in Psychology2017,15:19 25employ fierce discipline to facilitate achievement anddevelopment. Careful empirical research does not sup-port this view, however [14 ,15]. Person-centered analy-ses of Asian American parents parenting dimensionsrevealed four profiles, one of which fit the descriptionof tiger parenting . However, this pattern was not com-mon and was associated with poor adjustment, whereasthe most typical and adaptive profile reflected parents in the Middle East also are described asauthoritarian [16], although research does suggest signifi-cant variability.

5 Recent person-centered analyses of fiveparenting dimensions , assessed in a sample of Arab refu-gee youth living in Jordan, found that the most commonprofile for both mothers and fathers was consistent withauthoritative parenting [17 ] that is, low levels of harsh,punitive parenting and psychological control and highlevels of support, behavioral control, and parental knowl-edge of activities, and this profile was associated withbetter adjustment. These studies provide some supportfor the claim that components of authoritative parentingare beneficial for child and adolescent as moderatorsHarsh or physical discipline, yelling or scolding, expres-sing disappointment, and shaming, all of which are hall-marks of authoritarian parenting , have detrimental effectson child adjustment in cultures around the world. Forinstance, parents who spank generally believe that itsocializes positive behavior. However, large-scale studiesin the [18 ] and in cultures varying in their use ofthese practices [19 ] show that spanking generally hasnegative effects for children s adjustment and socialcompetence, although these practices are less harmful(although still negative) when they are more culturallynormative [20].

6 A recent study found that parental sham-ing is more culturally normative in both rural and urbanChina than in an urban sample in Canada and that it wasseen as less psychologically harmful among rural Chinese(where it was more normative) than Canadians, but therewere also interesting developmental trends. Acrossgroups, 10 11 and 13 14 year-olds evaluated shamingmore negatively than 7 8 year-olds and viewed it as morenegative for their psychological wellbeing [21 ]. beliefs about parental authority legitimacy also influenceresponses to parenting . Adolescents view parental author-ity as illegitimate when parents control personal issues ( , pertaining to privacy, bodily control, and personalpreferences) [22], see also Kobak, in press (this issue).Across cultures, children develop a personal domainbecause it satisfies basic needs for autonomy, althoughthere are cultural variations in its content and boundaries[22]. However, individual differences in legitimacybeliefs mediate or moderate links between parentingand adolescent adjustment.

7 Studies have found thatparent supervision and monitoring leads to greater ado-lescent disclosure about their activities to parents, butonly when legitimacy beliefs are strong [23 ]. Further-more, stronger authority legitimacy beliefs regardingfree-time activities (which are generally considered per-sonal issues) are associated with adolescents greatercompliance with parents rules [24 ]. Legitimacy beliefsalso mediate the association between parenting stylesand juvenile delinquency [25], with authoritative par-enting associated with stronger legitimacy beliefs and inturn, less juvenile delinquency over time. The oppositewas found for authoritarian parenting . These studieshighlight adolescents role as active agents in approachesIn response to the cultural critiques of parenting styles , Current research focuses on discrete dimensions of par-enting, providing greater specificity in understandingparenting effects. For instance, behavioral control hasbeen distinguished from psychological control and paren-tal controlPsychological control, which is characteristic of authori-tarian parenting , includes parental intrusiveness, guiltinduction, and love withdrawal and is associated acrosscultures with internalizing and externalizing problems[26,27].

8 Barber and his colleagues [28] have identifiedparental disrespectas the specific mechanism causing thesenegative effects and have demonstrated that disrespectaccounts for more of the variance in maladjustment thanpsychological control, broadly measured. Other thanagreeableness, there is little evidence that personalityvariables moderate associations between psychologicalcontrol and problem behavior [29 ].Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), Soenensand Vansteenkiste [30] proposed a narrower conceptuali-zation of psychological control as internally pressuringparenting, or conditional approval through manipulationof feelings of guilt, shame, and separation anxiety (ratherthan external pressure from punishment, rewards, orremoving privileges). Controlling parenting was associ-ated with more oppositional defiance, need frustration,and in turn, internalizing and externalizing problems thanwas autonomy-supportive parenting [31 ,32]. Finally,others [33] have proposed that parental psychologicalcontrol involves intrusions into adolescents personaldomain, leading to feelings of overcontrol and in turn,maladjustment [34].

9 Behavioral controlIn contrast to psychological control, appropriate levels ofbehavioral control guide and regulate children s behaviorby providing clear, consistent parental expectations andthe structure to facilitate competent and responsible20 ParentingCurrent Opinion in Psychology2017,15:19 Behavioral control includes setting high stan-dards and making and enforcing rules through supervisionand monitoring. However, at high levels, behavioral andpsychological control become blurred, causing detrimen-tal effects for development [34].The monitoring debate Parental monitoring has been viewed as preventing ado-lescent problem behavior (drug use, truancy, antisocialbehavior), because it allows for some autonomy whilepermitting parents to keep track of their teens. However,these studies typically measured parentalknowledgeofadolescents out-of-home activities, not monitoring[35,36]. Many studies in Western countries have con-firmed that parental knowledge comes primarily fromadolescent disclosure of their activities, not parents solicitation of information or behavioral control.

10 AmongPalestinian refugee youth in Jordan, adolescent disclo-sure, maternal solicitation, and behavioral control all wereassociated with greater maternal knowledge, but as inWestern societies, only child-driven processes (less dis-closure, more secrecy) were associated with greater normbreaking and anxiety [37 ].This monitoring debate [38] has led to much researchexamining how adolescents manage information withtheir parents and the parenting and parent-adolescentrelationship qualities, such as trust and supportive rela-tionships [39] that facilitate adolescents willing disclo-sure to parents (see also Kobak, in press, this issue). Morerecent research has attempted to identify situations whereparental monitoring is effective (or not). For example,although used infrequently, parental snooping providesparents with additional information about teens activi-ties, but violates adolescents expectations for privacy andis thus associated with problematic family functioning[40 ].