Psychological Reports, 2012, 110, 3, 854-878.

Psychological Reports 2012

Parent socialization effects in different cultures:

Significance of directive parenting1, 2

NADIA SORKHABI

San Jose State University

Institute of Human Development
University of California, Berkeley

Summary.In this article, the controversy of divergent findings in research on

parental socialization effects in different cultures is addressed. Three explanations
intended to address divergent findings of socialization effects in different cultures,
as advanced by researchers who emphasize cultural differences, are discussed.
These include cultural differences in socialization values and goals of parents,
parental emotional and cognitive characteristics associated with parenting styles,
and adolescents interpretations or evaluations of their parents parenting styles.
The empirical evidence for and against each of these arguments is examined and
an alternative paradigm for understanding and empirical study of developmental
outcomes associated with parenting styles in different cultures is suggested. Baum
rinds directive parenting style is presented as an alternative to the authoritarian
parenting style in understanding the positive developmental effects associated
with strict parenting in cultures said to have a collectivist orientation. Directions
for research on the three explanations are mentioned.

Much research in the USA with European-American families, said to

have individualist values, has found beneficial developmental outcomes
associated with authoritative parenting and deleterious ones associated
with authoritarian, permissive, and unengaged parenting (Baumrind,
1991a, 1991b). However, when the link between parenting styles or par
enting practices and associated developmental outcomes has been exam
ined in non-European cultures, results have been variable. Some research
ers have found that the authoritarian parenting style (associated with
negative child outcomes for European-American children) is the prevalent
form of parenting in groups said to emphasize collectivist values when
compared to groups said to emphasize individualist values (e.g., Dorn
busch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Leung, Lau, & Lam,
1998). Furthermore, in studies in which cultural differences have been em
phasized, developmental outcomes associated with any given parenting
style, especially the authoritarian parenting style, differ in individualist
and collectivist groups (Dornbusch, et al., 1987; Chao, 2001). In this article,
three explanations are presented that researchers have employed to elu
1
Address correspondence to Nadia Sorkhabi, One Washington Square, Department of Child
& Adolescent Development, Lurie College of Education, San Jose State University, San Jose,
CA 95192-0075 or e-mail (nadia.sorkhabi@sjsu.edu).
2
My gratitude and deepest thanks go to Diana Baumrind, Susan Holloway, and Elliot Turiel.

DOI 10.2466/10.02.17.21.PR0.110.3.854-878 ISSN 0033-2941

 Parent Socialization Effects 855

cidate the findings on the prevalence of authoritarian parenting and the

differential outcomes associated with a given parenting style in collectiv
ist cultures. Briefly, these three explanations include the following: (1) val
ues and socialization goals of members of individualist and collectivist
cultural groups differ; therefore, in ways commensurate with actuation of
values and socialization goals, authoritarian parenting style or practice is
prevalent in collectivist cultures, and authoritative parenting style or prac
tice is prevalent in individualist cultures, (2) authoritarian style is associ
ated with more adaptive emotional and cognitive parental characteristics
in collectivist than in individualist cultures, and (3) children and adoles
cents in collectivist cultures evaluate authoritarian parenting in a positive
light, as a sign of parental concern, dedication, and involvement; they do
not evaluate authoritarian parenting negatively, as a sign of parental rejec
tion and punitiveness. Children and adolescents positive interpretations
explain the positive developmental effects of authoritarian parenting. For
each of these three explanations, the empirical evidence for and against
each is discussed. Finally, the directive parenting style is presented as an
alternative type of parenting that may help researchers better distinguish
between strict parenting that is authoritarian and deleterious to child de
velopment versus strict parenting that is directive and beneficial to child
development. Reciprocity between parent and child and parental attun
ement to the childs individuality and specific circumstances are present
ed as the process mechanisms by which the beneficial effects of directive
and authoritative parenting are derived.
Differences in Values and Socialization Goals of Parents in Individualist and
Collectivist Cultures
The first explanation for cultural differences in prevalence and out
comes of parenting styles is that parents in individualist and collectiv
ist groups differ in their values and socialization goals. Groups in which
collectivism is emphasized are described as valuing unquestioned obe
dience, deference to authority, and duty or obligation to another and to
the group (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997; Rudy & Grusec, 2006;
Markus, 2008). Members of collectivist groups are described as de-empha
sizing the value of individual self-expression, autonomy, and self-interest
as reflective of egocentrism and improper socialization, so collectivists are
said to be less likely to employ such practices as soliciting and accommo
dating the viewpoint of the child, fostering self-reliance and independent
decision-making, and legitimating parental authority by providing rea
sons for parental directives (Rudy & Grusec, 2006), which are components
of authoritative parenting. Collectivist parents, who are said to value obe
dience and hierarchy, are more likely to employ authoritarian parenting
which involves the use of such practices as demands of obedience with
856 N. SORKHABI

out providing reason or explanation, disregard for childrens viewpoints,

and punishment of childrens initiative, self-expression, and independent
decision making by use of shame which can include name-calling, deroga
tory attributions, social comparisons, public humiliation, threats of aban
donment, and physical punishment (which may be severe enough to dam
age childs skin; Fung, 1999).
Because culture is defined as an adaptive system of rules and practic
es shared by a collectivity (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; LeVine, 2009), the
proposed prevalence of authoritarian parenting within a group, especial
ly if that group is collectivist or of non-Western origin, is also assumed to
be adaptive (Markus, et al., 1997). That is, the mere prevalence or shared
nature of values or practices is thought to lend practices credibility and
adaptive value. The reasoning appears to be if a practice was not adap
tive and didnt serve cultural ends, it would likely not be prevalent and
shared by a majority within a group. It is important, however, to verify
such an assumption empirically by assessing whether variations in par
enting styles, especially the distinction between authoritarian and author
itative parenting styles, are related to differences in adaptive child and ad
olescent outcomes in collectivist cultures. Therefore, even if one assumes,
as some researchers have (Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005), that authori
tarian parenting is prevalent in collectivist or non-European groups, the
proposed adaptiveness of outcomes associated with authoritarian parent
ing in that culture should be verified empirically.
It is important to note, however, that the prevalence of authoritarian
parenting in collectivist groups inside or outside the USA cannot be in
ferred from samples studied. The prevalence of any parenting style within
any group has not been demonstrated by any study, given limitations in
sample size and clear representation of groups. These limitations preempt
conclusions regarding the prevalence of any parenting style in any pop
ulation. This is not to suggest that variation within cultural groups nulli
fies differences between cultural groups. As LeVine (2009) indicated with
respect to some socialization practices, instead of a normal bell-curved
distribution which would indicate significant individual variation within
a group, J-shaped distributions would signify overwhelming conformity
of behavior or similarity of majority of instances with minor variation.
Even if such distributions do signify cultural differences in prevalence of
a practice, both short- and long-term outcomes associated with variations
in practices should be examined to verify the adaptiveness of normative
practices.
Further, it may not be true that parents who prioritize the values of
obedience and respect for authority necessarily practice authoritarian par
enting. Authoritarian parenting is one means, but may not be the only
 Parent Socialization Effects 857

one, to obtain obedience. It may be that a parenting style to Baumrind

(1991a, 1991b) and Baumrind, Larzelere, and Owens (2010) refer to as di
rective parenting style rather than authoritarian parenting style is prac
ticed by parents identified as having a collectivist orientation and valuing
obedience.
Baumrind (1991a, 1991b) distinguished among authoritative, direc
tive, and authoritarian parenting styles which are high on demand or
control but vary in quality of control, responsiveness, and socialization
goals. Baumrind, et al. (2010) elaborated dimensions which distinguish a
directive parent from authoritarian and authoritative parents in a study
designed to examine the longitudinal adolescent outcomes of parenting
experienced during the preschool years. These authors stated that author
itarian parents scored over one standard deviation higher than authorita
tive and directive parents on coercive or authoritarian-distinctive pow
er-assertive practices which included unqualified power-assertion (e.g.,
issuing directives without a reason, discouraging verbal give-and-take),
psychological control (e.g., manipulative), verbal hostility (e.g., belittling
child), and arbitrary discipline (e.g., noncontingent punishment, internal
ly inconsistent or unpredictable sanctions). However, on the dimension of
responsiveness which included such indicators as (a) open when a child
disagrees, (b) approachable and available to child, (c) listens to a childs
critical comments, (d) disciplines supportively, (e) reciprocates a childs
bids for closeness, and (f) warm, while authoritarian parents scored sig
nificantly lower than both authoritative and directive parents, directive
parents scored significantly lower than authoritative parents. Although
a directive parent was indistinguishable from an authoritative parent in
refraining from use of coercive or authoritarian-distinctive power-asser
tion, a directive parent is distinct from both authoritative and authoritar
ian parents in being less responsive than the former and more responsive
than the latter. However, with respect to socialization goals of obedience
and conformity, authoritarian and directive parents were not significant
ly different from one another, whereas authoritative parents were signifi
cantly different from both authoritarian and directive parents. The dimen
sion of promotes conformity, designed to assess socialization goals of
obedience and respect for authority, included such indicators as (a) a child
should honor her mother and father and accept their authority, (b) a child
should be polite and not argue with teachers, (c) a child should not talk
back to adults, (d) a child should respect authority, (e) a child should ac
commodate group demands, and (f) defiant stance by a child is unaccept
able. On this dimension also, authoritarian and directive parents were
indistinguishable from each other, whereas authoritative parents were sig
nificantly different from directive and authoritarian parents. Authoritar
858 N. SORKHABI

ian and directive parents equally endorsed the different aspects of child
conformity, indicating high valuation of child conformity. By contrast, au
thoritative parents scored significantly lower than authoritarian and di
rective parents on valuing child conformity.
Baumrind, et al. (2010) then reported that both authoritarian and di
rective parents valued authority and obedience more than authoritative
parents. However, directive and authoritative parents were similar to one
another and distinct from authoritarian parents in how they implemented
control to achieve their socialization goals. Even though directive parents
were less responsive than authoritative parents, both authoritative and di
rective parents were less likely than authoritarian parents to employ coer
cive practices such as verbal hostility, arbitrary discipline, psychological
control, and unqualified power-assertion. That authoritarian and directive
parents have the same socialization goals but implement different types of
control to achieve those goals suggest parents can and do select different
ways of achieving the same values or goals. Therefore, culturally driven
explanations of similarity or prevalence of values and socialization goals
within a culture and differences in values and goals between cultures may
not explain why parents elect to implement a certain set of practices. This
in turn may affect whether values are upheld and goals achieved.
Coercive power-assertion exercised by authoritarian parents involves
demeaning, officious, meddlesome, and interfering behavior that sub
verts a childs independence and self-reliance because the parent indis
criminately derogates a childs initiative and intervenes or controls when
a child is not asking for assistance and does not appear to need parental
control and structure. Such control is functionally superfluous because it
is not logically related to the childs needs or abilities and is harmful
impeding a childs initiative and self-reliance (Baumrind, et al., 2010). As
Baumrind, et al., predicted, differences in the ways in which control is ap
plied rather than the magnitude of control or responsiveness significant
ly affect positive adolescent outcomes associated with both authoritative
and directive parenting and the deleterious outcomes associated with au
thoritarian parenting.
Furthermore, Baumrind has found that firm control, developmental
ly appropriate maturity demands, and confrontive discipline practiced
by directive and authoritative parents are not detrimental to the devel
opment of a self-reliant and autonomous child and adolescent. Indeed, in
Baumrind, et al.s (2010) work, permissive and unengaged parents who al
low children freedom without supportive structure, firm control, and cor
rection of inconsiderate behavior undermine agency, self-regulation, and
socially responsible behavior. As Sorkhabi and Baumrind (2009) stated,
agentic and independent behavior is necessary not only for the initiative
 Parent Socialization Effects 859

of child and adolescent but also for compliance with parental directives
and conformity to societal requirements. A certain amount of self-reliance
and independence is necessary for a child to do what is valued in collec
tivist cultures, i.e., to serve the interests of other group members and to
be a productive member of society. Therefore, it appears that children in
both kinds of culture may benefit from authoritative and directive par
enting if agency is not undermined and communion is promoted. How
ever, both permissive and authoritarian kinds of parents undermine both
agency and communion because such parents do not engage in reciprocal
interactions with the child which encourage the child to think about the
purpose of societal rules or requirements for adult conduct and to assess
critically and differentiate between situations in which compliance and
conformity would be adaptive and situations in which dissent and disobe
dience would be adaptive.
Balance in child behavior between communion and agency and reci
procity in parent-child interactions may be important and relevant in both
cultural groups. Reciprocity herein is defined as interactions that involve
mutual exchange during which the parent, being in a more experienced
and developmentally advanced position relative to his or her child, is at
tentive to the childs perspective, needs, and particular circumstance and
implements practices that address the childs needs. Such parental attun
ement to childrens needs is likely to, in turn, lead to child attunement
and attentiveness to parental perspective. It is by reciprocal interactions
that childrens agentic and communal tendencies are nurtured (Parpal &
Maccoby, 1985; Maccoby, 1999; Baumrind, 2005; Davidov & Grusec, 2006).
As has been confirmed by several researchers (Markus & Kitayama, 1991,
2010; Turiel, 2002), reciprocity is valued in both individualist and collec
tivist cultures. Markus and Kitayama indicated that even in collectivist
cultures where concern for the other and self-subordination are empha
sized, reciprocity must be maintained for collectivist members to continue
giving, caring, and focusing on others interests while subordinating their
own. Subordination of self-interest is carried out by collectivist members
to the extent that reciprocity of personal efforts is anticipated in the future.
Turiel (2002) chronicled the many instances of disobedience, subversion,
and revolt in a variety of collectivist cultures (India, Iran, Morocco) against
authority figures (i.e., parents, husbands, politicians), whom collectivist
members deemed to have violated principles of reciprocity and equity and
to have arbitrarily interfered with individual freedoms (e.g., differential
treatment of boys and girls, disallowing paid work for women, girls and
women being forced to dress in Islamic garb). Therefore, reciprocity as a
moral principle seems regarded as important in adaptive social and inter
personal relationships for both individualist and collectivist cultures.
860 N. SORKHABI

If one extrapolated the principle of reciprocity to explain the nega

tive outcomes of authoritarian and permissive parenting and the positive
effects of authoritative and directive parenting, permissive and authori
tarian parents seem to violate the principle of reciprocity by not under
standing and accommodating their childs needs, abilities, and individu
ality. For example, authoritarian parents may violate reciprocity by failing
to reciprocate a childs bids for closeness (i.e., low warmth) and by dis
couraging verbal give-and-take (Baumrind, et al., 2010). The childs view
point is not solicited by the authoritarian parent and is often actively dis
couraged by various means including verbal hostility and non-contingent
punishment. Similarly, permissive parents do not engage in sustained ver
bal give-and-take, but instead of punishing or becoming verbally hostile
as authoritarian parents do, permissive parents simply do not accommo
date or take the childs viewpoint seriously and disengage from interac
tion, especially when verbal give-and-take involves a child disagreeing
with or being critical of a parent (e.g., Caughlin & Malis, 2004; Lichtwarck-
Aschoff, Kunnen, & van Geert, 2009). Authoritative and directive parents
do not violate the principle of reciprocity because they employ practic
es, such as verbal give-and-take, listening to a childs critical comments,
requiring a child to attend in turn to parental perspective, reciprocating
childs bids for closeness that accommodate their childs needs, abilities,
individuality, and specific circumstances.
When in addition to the authoritative and authoritarian styles, Baum
rinds directive parenting style is applied to describe parenting practices
of non-Europeans, a more delineated and accurate description of preva
lent forms of parenting and child outcomes can emerge. In Jarretts (2000)
description of African-American mothers parenting practices in low-in
come neighborhoods, Baumrinds directive parenting style better de
scribes the adaptive parenting of those mothers who kept their children
physically safe, deterred drug use, prevented delinquency, and promot
ed academic achievement in the harsh conditions of inner-city neighbor
hoods. In Jarretts narrative descriptions, the African-American mothers
observed were first and foremost affectively warm, nurturant, and deeply
committed to their childrens success. They did everything they could to
make certain their childrens course in life was not derailed by numerous
negative influences prevalent in their low-income neighborhoods (e.g.,
crime, drug use) and by factors associated with poverty (e.g., single-par
enthood, teenage pregnancy, low educational attainment, low paying jobs,
unstable employment). They promoted academic achievement by active
ly encouraging literacy, praising and rewarding their childrens academ
ic progress, seeking schools of high quality (which required time, ener
gy, and research), and finding resources such as afterschool, church, and
 Parent Socialization Effects 861

athletic programs within and outside of their own community to support

healthy physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development. These
African-American mothers also closely regulated their childrens where
abouts and activities outside the home and their friendships. They tried
to know where their children were at all times and in what activity they
were engaged. They got to know each of their childrens friends. If they
deemed a friend to be a bad influence on their children, they required their
children to abandon the friend and to select a friend who did not have
disqualifying characteristics they identified. They also personally chaper
oned their young child on outings with friends and asked a sibling to act
as a chaperone for their adolescent child.
The vigilance of some African-American mothers evident in moni
toring practices may lead some to label these mothers as authoritarian
(e.g., Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003); however, closer ex
amination suggests these mothers behaved directively and perhaps even
authoritatively, but certainly not as authoritarian. When these mothers
found a friend to be unacceptable, they gave their child no room to ques
tion their judgment regarding the potential danger posed. However, these
mothers allowed their children to form other friendships, explained why
they disapproved of their childrens friend, and asked their children to se
lect a friend who met the mothers standards. Compared with authoritar
ian parents, such parents can be described as authoritative or directive in
that they showed low unqualified power-assertion, psychological control,
verbal hostility, and arbitrary disciplineall of which are defining fea
tures of the authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, et al., 2010). The par
ents were also distinct from authoritarian parents in that they were warm
and had affectively positive relations with their children, and their regu
lation of their childrens friendships was logical, reasoned, and connected
to their childs needs and circumstance. These careful and deliberate pa
rental considerations involving coordination of childrens individuality,
child needs, and particular environmental circumstances are not a part
of authoritarian or permissive parents practice. These African-American
mothers did not lose sight of the developmental benefits of peer interac
tions and friendships, allowed their children to have friends, and made
sure that these friends posed no danger so that their children could in
deed reap the benefits of appropriate friendships and avoid the costs of
inappropriate friendships. However, other parents in a similar situation
may either altogether forbid (authoritarian) or fail to closely regulate rela
tionships (permissive or neglectingrejecting parents who may even bur
den children with adult responsibilities; e.g., Burton, 2007; Coohey, 2007;
Trentacosta & Shaw, 2008). Both approaches pose developmental risks for
children. Indeed, the positive academic and social outcomes for African-
862 N. SORKHABI

American children who have such committed and caring parents are evi
dence of their parents directive or authoritative approach to parenting
(Jarrett, 2000). Numerous other studies also find the beneficial effects (self-
esteem, self-concept, academic achievement, self-reliance) of authoritative
parenting and the deleterious effects (delinquency, truancy, depression,
aggression, interaction with problem peers) of authoritarian, permissive,
and neglectful parenting for African-American children and adolescents,
including those living in low income families (e.g., Mason, Cauce, Gon
zales, & Hiraga, 1996; Klein & Forehand, 2000; Taylor, 2000; Mandara &
Murray, 2002; Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002; Lee, Daniels, & Kissing
er, 2006; Hoeve, Blokland, Semon Dubas, Loeber, Gerris, & van der Laan,
2008).
Similarly, directive parenting style should be examined within Asian
cultures to assess whether the lack of negative academic outcomes associ
ated with the authoritarian parenting style which has been found by Chao
(2001) and others (Dornbusch, et al., 1987; Leung, et al., 1998) reflects ab
sence of differentiation by these researchers between authoritarian and
directive parenting. As Chao (2001) and Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, and
McBride-Chang (2003) have indicated, Asian middle-class parents in the
USA and in countries like China and Hong Kong highly prize the develop
ment of self-discipline attained through hard work and academic achieve
ment and are unwilling to alter or negotiate their socialization goals with
their children. However, as Chang, et al. (2003) and Chen, Liu, Li, Cen,
Chen, and Wang (2000) have found, it is unclear if Asian parents uniform
ly apply authoritarian control to achieve the socialization goal of academ
ic achievement. Chao (1994) proposed training as a parenting construct,
which she defined using the dimensions of Guan (i.e., parental investment
and involvement) and Chia-Shun (i.e., organizational control), to explain
the superior academic performance of Asian children and adolescents
compared with groups in the USA. By proposing the two dimensions of
training, Chao attempted to conceptually distinguish the responsiveness
and demandingness of Asian parenting from European-American parent
ing. Chao indicated that Asian parents responsiveness may differ from
that of European-American parents in that Asian parents do not explic
itly display affection by hugging and kissing their children. Rather, their
responsiveness is shown implicitly by engaging in self-sacrifice to ensure
their childs achievement. Chao also indicated that Asian parents (in par
ticular, first-generation Chinese in the USA) apply organizational con
trol, emphasize family honor, and demand hard work, self-discipline, and
achievement.
Chaos conceptualization of Asian responsiveness and demanding
ness may be similar to Baumrinds description of European-American di
 Parent Socialization Effects 863

rective parenting style as highly demanding, moderately warm and nur

turant, and holding conservative values of obedience, politeness, family
honor, and respect for authority. Furthermore, the conceptual definition
of the two dimensions of training which include high expectations for de
velopmentally appropriate behavior, close involvement and investment,
supportive supervision, and encouragement of effort and self-discipline
is consistent with Baumrinds (2008) conceptual definitions of authorita
tive parenting style as well. Moreover, studies by Stewart, Rao, Bond, Mc
Bride-Chang, Fielding, et al. (1998) and Stewart, Bond, Zaman, McBride-
Chang, Rao, Ho, and Fielding (1999) have examined whether the two
dimensions of Guan and Chia-Shun that constitute Training (using 8 items
from Chaos, 1994, self-report questionnaire of training) are distinct from
authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles (using a measure devised
by Stewart and her colleagues) or from warmth and control (using a mea
sure devised by Stewart and her colleagues) measures used in individual
ist cultures with a sample of late adolescent girls in Hong Kong and Paki
stan (n=97 and n=102 respectively; M age=20 years for both samples).
Stewart and her colleagues found that factor analysis of training items
revealed that training loaded highly with measures of warmth and con
trol and did not appear to possess predictive power for outcomes such
as self-esteem, life-satisfaction, and perceived health above and beyond
measures of warmth and control. Furthermore, Chao (2000) found that a
sizeable portion of her sample of European-American parents (numbers
not reported) did endorse training, although Chinese-American parents
(M=4.49, SD=0.49) endorsed training significantly more than European-
American parents (M=3.94, SD=0.64; higher mean reflects greater en
dorsement of training). Furthermore, both Chinese- and European-Amer
ican parents who endorsed training did not differ significantly from one
another in endorsing the socialization goal of filial piety (r=.30 for Chi
nese Americans; r=.34 for European Americans). The similarity of Euro
pean Americans to Chinese Americans in endorsement of filial piety may
be due to European-American subcultures that differ on religiosity (which
was not studied by Chao).
Researchers including Chao agree that preservation of family hon
or by way of training for child academic achievement is a highly valued
socialization goal of Asian parents. However, Asian parents differ in the
parenting style they employ to achieve various socialization goals includ
ing family honor. A growing body of research suggests that Asian parents
practice a range of parenting styles which include authoritarian, authorita
tive, and permissive styles (Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; McBride-Chang &
Chang, 1998; Chen, Rubin, Liu, & Li, 2000; Chang, McBride-Chang, Stew
art, & Au, 2003; Zhou, Eisenberg, Wang, & Reiser, 2004; Supple & Small,
864 N. SORKHABI

2006; Wang, Pomerantz, & Chen, 2007; Nguyen, 2008). Some parents em
ployed authoritarian parenting style which included: public humiliation,
shaming, physical punishment, and rejection of children whose behavior
and academic performance fell below the threshold (excellent academic
grades) necessary for maintaining family honor. Other Asian parents were
authoritative and employed practices consistent with authoritative par
enting such as warmth, reason and explanation, firm control, and provi
sion of structure. Studies have also found that some Asian parents are also
not only permissive and indulge their children, but may also be neglect
ful (measured by questionnaire devised by Buri, 1991, as well as by Stein
berg, et al., 1994), evident in relatively high family disorganization (i.e.,
lack of structure, rules, adolescent makes all decisions by him/herself)
and in their failure to apply control and supervision needed to achieve so
cialization goals such as academic achievement (Radziszewska, Richard
son, Dent, & Flay, 1996; Kim & Gim Chung, 2003; Garg, Levin, Urajnik, &
Kauppi, 2005; Ang, 2006). The evidence from these studies points to the
important beneficial effects of authoritative parenting and the deleterious
effects of authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged/neglectful parenting
styles on outcomes for Asian children, which is similar to outcomes found
for children belonging to other ethnic groups including European Ameri
cans.
As the findings for African-American and Asian parents illustrate,
even when the majority of parents within a particular group have the
same goal, such as ensuring safe friendships and academic achievement,
there are differences in parenting styles and pattern of practices employed
to achieve the same goal. As Baumrinds research and that of many oth
ers conducted in different cultures suggest, not all parenting styles repre
sent equally effective means to achieving the desired ends. If all parenting
styles were simply different but equally effective routes to the achieve
ment of any given goal, there would be no purpose in studying parenting
in any culture. Therefore, irrespective of the type of parenting pattern that
is prevalent within a given culture, it is important to further study how
variations in parenting in non-European cultures are related to variations
in child outcomes.
Emotional and Cognitive Characteristics of Authoritarian Parents in Collectiv-
ist and Individualist Cultures
The second explanation offered by Rudy and Grusec (2001, 2006)
for the purported prevalence of authoritarian parenting and absence of
differences in outcomes associated with authoritarian and authoritative
parenting in collectivist cultures is that authoritarian parenting is associ
ated with negative cognitive and emotional parental characteristics in in
dividualist but not in collectivist cultures (measured by two self-report
 Parent Socialization Effects 865

questionnaires devised by Hui, 1988, and Rao and Rao, 1979). Rudy and
Grusec proposed that in individualist cultures (where individual indepen
dence and initiative are valued), parents who hold collectivist values and
practice authoritarian parenting are functioning in a way not considered
appropriate or normative within their culture because these values and
the authoritarian parenting style inhibit independence. Therefore, they
proposed that authoritarian parenting in individualist cultures is likely
to represent negative parental characteristics. For example, Coplan, Hast
ings, Lagace-Seguin, and Moulton (2002) found that Anglo-Canadian au
thoritarian mothers (N=76; measured by the Parenting Practices Ques
tionnaire devised by Robinson, et al., 1995), who have an individualist
cultural orientation, attributed negative child behavior to childrens in
ternal dispositions and attributed positive child behavior to external or
situational factors. Such cognitive attributions by authoritarian mothers
were also related to feelings of anger and to feelings of embarrassment
if child misbehavior occurs in public (measured by parental responses to
various hypothetical scenarios depicting child misbehavior). By contrast,
Rudy and Grusec (2006) hypothesized that authoritarian parenting is not
associated with negative parental characteristics in collectivist cultures be
cause the prevalence of authoritarian parenting leads collectivist parents
to regard authoritarian parenting as a necessary or appropriate means of
parenting, even if they do not hold collectivist views because they witness
other parents engaging in authoritarian parenting. Therefore, collectivist
authoritarian parents are behaving in ways congruent with the norms of
their culture and are less likely to exhibit the more negative behaviors
(e.g., lack of warmth and nurturance and presence of anger, hostility, and
negative internal attributions about child misbehavior).
Few comparative studies have examined parental characteristics as
sociated with authoritarian parenting in collectivist and individualist cul
tures. In two studies, Rudy and Grusec (2001, 2006) compared the cog
nitive and emotional characteristics (i.e., parental attributions for child
behavior, anger, warmth, and nurturance) of authoritarian parents said
to belong to individualist and collectivist groups. The findings of the two
studies, however, are inconsistent. Rudy and Grusec (2001) compared
Egyptian-Canadian (n=33; assumed to be collectivist by ethnicity only)
and Anglo-Canadian (n=31; assumed to be individualist) authoritarian
parents (measured by Child Rearing Practices Report devised by Block,
1981) on the dimensions of parental warmth (measured by Child Rearing
Practices Report questionnaire by Block, 1981), cognitive attributions re
garding child misbehavior (by four hypothetical vignettes devised by au
thors; after each vignette participants indicated whether they attribute the
cause of misbehavior to internal disposition of the child or to external fac
866 N. SORKHABI

tors), and parental anger (self-rating of anger on a Likert-type scale of 1

to 7 in response to hypothetical child misbehavior vignettes). For the An
glo-Canadian group, as Rudy and Grusec hypothesized, a negative asso
ciation was found between parental warmth and authoritarian parenting
(Pearson r=.50, p<.01). However, contrary to their prediction, the posi
tive association between parental warmth and authoritarian parenting for
Egyptian Canadians was not significant (Pearson r=.19). Neither group of
parents attributed negative dispositions to the misbehaving children de
picted in the hypothetical scenarios (Pearson r=.02 for the Egyptian-Ca
nadian group and Pearson r=.04 for the Anglo-Canadian group), which
was also an unexpected finding, as their prediction was that Anglo-Ca
nadian but not Egyptian-Canadian authoritarian parents would attribute
negative dispositions to children for misbehavior. Another unexpected
finding was that anger ratings were positively and significantly associ
ated with authoritarian parenting by Egyptian Canadians (Pearson r=.42,
p<.01), but not by Anglo Canadians (Pearson r=.19). Contrary to Rudy
and Grusecs proposal that authoritarian parenting would be associated
with positive parental characteristics in collectivist and not individualist
groups, they found that authoritarian parenting in both types of cultures
was associated with negative parental characteristics of low warmth for
the Anglo-Canadian group and anger for the Egyptian-Canadian group. It
may be that above and beyond cultural factors, the specific temperamen
tal and personality characteristics of participants need to be examined.
Rudy and Grusec (2006) re-examined the positive and negative char
acteristics they proposed were associated with authoritarian parenting in
collectivist and individualist cultures, respectively, by comparing Anglo
Canadians (N=32; which they refer to as the individualist group) and Ca
nadians of Egyptian (n=2), Pakistani/Indian (n=12), Iranian (n=14), and
Mixed (n=2; Iraqi, Egyptian, and Palestinian) origin (which they lumped
together as a collectivist group). Contrary to their previous study, they
found that negative cognitive attribution for childrens misbehavior was
positively related to authoritarian parenting for both groups, but was
statistically significant only for the Anglo Canadians (Pearson r=.50,
p<.05; for collectivist group: Pearson r=.15). In the previous study, the
significant Pearson correlation (noted above) for Anglo Canadians was
not found. Also contrary to their previous study and their hypotheses,
for both groups rated anger was positively but not significantly (Pearson
r=.07 for collectivist group; Pearson r=.15 for individualist group) relat
ed to authoritarian parenting (measured by Child Rearing Practices Re
port by Block, 1981). In the previous study the association was significant
for Egyptian Canadians. Consistent with their previous study and con
trary to their hypothesis, a significant, negative correlation was found be
 Parent Socialization Effects 867

tween authoritarian parenting and warmth for Anglo Canadians (Pearson

r=.31, p<.01), but no significant correlation was found for the collectiv
ist group (Pearson r=.07).
Overall, the findings of the two studies by Rudy and Grusec do not
offer strong support for the positive and negative emotional and cogni
tive characteristics that they purport would be associated with author
itarian parenting in collectivist and individualist cultures, respectively.
Their findings suggest that collectivist authoritarian parents in Rudy and
Grusecs sample are not warm and that they might even be angry, even
when compared with their individualist group of authoritarian parents.
The findings are unclear as to how authoritarian parents think about child
misbehavior in each culture. It appears that authoritarian parenting is not
clearly linked to positive parental characteristics in either type of culture
studied.
It is important to note, however, that other researchers proposed and
found the opposite: that authoritarian parenting is associated with pa
rental psychological distress and negative affect and negative family dy
namics and interactions not only in individualist but also in collectivist
cultures. Baumrind (1991b), with her longitudinal sample of European-
American families, found that authoritarian and unengaged families com
pared with directive and authoritative families manifested negative family
dynamics, as 50% of the authoritarian (n=21) and 60% of the unengaged
families (n=30) were divorced compared with 14% of directive (n=28)
and 14% of authoritative families (n=21). Chang, Lansford, Schwartz, and
Farver (2004) found that authoritarian parenting (sample of 158 mothers)
in Hong Kong (deemed to be collectivist) is related to maternal psycho
logical distress and depression (measured by Chinese Personality Assess
ment Inventory-2 by Cheung, Leung, Song, & Zhang, 2001) and negative
family dynamics such as frequent marital conflict (measured by Spain
ers, 1976, Dyadic Adjustment Scale). Cheah, Leung, Tahseen, and Schultz
(2009) also found that Chinese immigrant mothers (N=85) with greater
psychological well-being (measured by Ryffs, 1986, Psychological Well-
Being Scale), lower parenting stress (measured by Crnic & Greenbergs,
1990, Parenting Daily Hassles Questionnaire), and high parenting support
(measured by Bornsteins, 1991, measure of spousal psychological sup
port) were likely to be authoritative (measured by Parenting Styles Dimen
sions Questionnaire by Robinson, et al., 2001). Among Asian Indian moth
ers (N=98), Sharma, Sharma, and Amrita (2010) found that authoritarian
parenting (measured by Buris, 1991, Parental Authority Questionnaire)
was significantly and positively related to depression (measured by the
Beck Depression Inventory, 1996). Similarly, research with African-Ameri
can families also reveals that authoritarian parenting is related more to life
868 N. SORKHABI

stressors and an individuals assessment of their life conditions and cop

ing skills than to cultural values intended to instill respect for parents and
to maintain hierarchy. According to McLoyd (1990), psychological distress
and feelings of vulnerability caused by chronic poverty, excess of negative
life events, and absence or disruption of marital bonds undermine par
ents capacities for supportive, consistent, and involved parenting that in
turn adversely affect childrens socio-emotional functioning. Several stud
ies support McLoyds conclusions. Florsheim, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith
(1996) found that mothers of African-American boys at high risk (high
risk was determined by scores on externalizing problem behavior scale of
the Child Behavior Checklist devised by Achenbach, 1991) were more pu
nitive (i.e., blaming/belittling) and less nurturant (i.e., affective warmth)
(measured by coding videotaped observations of family interactions) than
mothers of African-American boys at low risk. Taylor, Roberts, and Jacob
son (1997) found that parenting of African-American mothers (N=79) was
moderated by life stressors (i.e., work stress, health problems, relation
ship problems, family disruption) and mediated by parents psychologi
cal functioning or well-being (i.e., self-esteem, psychological distress). For
example, with respect to the influence of maternal psychological factors
on parenting style, Taylor, et al. concluded that mothers with low self-
esteem may have fewer resources to manage the task of knowing how
and when to extend adolescents autonomy (p. 54). Similarly, Brody and
Flor (1997) found that African-American single mothers (N=156), 70% of
whom lived in poverty, experienced depressive symptoms and low self-
esteem which in turn affected family routines and mother-child harmony,
and these variables in turn affected self-regulation, academic achievement
and externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors of their children
(6 to 9 years of age). Zhang and Anderson (2010) studied the effects on
parenting of exposure to community violence (i.e., witnessing beatings,
attacks with a weapon, shootings, killings) with a sample of European-
(n=42), African- (n=253), and Hispanic-American (n=52) single moth
ers (total N=346) who were living considerably below the poverty line
(income of $8,515/year) with at least one child under the age of 18 years.
Zhang and Anderson found that mothers who had been exposed to mod
erate (n=100, 29%) and high (n=69, 20%) community violence compared
to mothers who had no exposure (n=177, 51%) to violence were respec
tively 2.1 and 2.4 times more likely to engage in physically aggressive par
enting (i.e., spanking on bottom with a hand; hitting childs bottom with
something; pinching; shaking; slapping on the hand, arm, or leg) and 1.7
and 1.8 times more likely to engage in psychologically aggressive parent
ing (i.e., shouting, yelling, or screaming; threatening to spank or hit but
not actually doing so; swearing or cursing; calling the child names; threat
 Parent Socialization Effects 869

ening to kick the child out of the house or to send the child away). The
significant relationship among moderate and high exposure to violence
compared to no exposure to violence and the outcome of aggressive par
enting persisted after controlling for factors that could affect parenting
which included: maternal social supports, stress, alcohol consumption,
health status, age, race, education, employment, number of children at
home, family income, sex of child, and child health status. Arditti, Burton,
and Neeves-Botelho (2010) also described the effects of cumulative stress
ors and disadvantage on parenting of low-income single mothers.
Recently, studies by Mandara, Johnston, Murray, and Varner (2008)
and Varner and Mandara (2009) lent further empirical support for the ar
gument that life stressors such as divorce and poverty affect the psycho
logical health of African-American mothers which, in turn, may tax their
capacity to engage in supportive parenting that is authoritative or direc
tive. With a large sample of African-American mothers (N=443), Varner
and Mandara found that mothers who were divorced evinced higher de
pressive symptoms (measured by Center for Epidemiological Studies De
pression Scale; Radloff, 1977) than mothers who were continuously mar
ried and had never experienced divorce and mothers who were newly
married. However, the effects of divorce were moderated by the financial
resources mothers had, in that mothers who had more financial resourc
es did not experience a significant increase in depression after divorce,
but mothers with few resources experienced a significantly large increase
(=.32, p<.001) in depression. Similarly, Mandara, et al., found that fam
ily income had a significant (=.24, p<.01) effect on the self-esteem (mea
sured by the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory; OBrien & Epstein,
1988) of African American mothers after controlling for maternal age, ed
ucation, and employment as well as childrens age. It appears that for Af
rican-Americans, authoritarian parenting and harsh discipline are not a
cultural value (Mosby, Rawls, Meehan, & Pettinari, 1999) but are brought
about by social and economic stressors that affect peoples assessment of
their life conditions and coping skills. The operation of measurable so
cial and psychological factors (e.g., poverty, discrimination, coping skills)
more effectively explains the proposed prevalence of authoritarian par
enting and its links to child outcomes than assertions about prevalent cul
tural values or stereotyping. Jarretts (2000) qualitative research, present
ed earlier, supports the conclusion that harsh discipline is not a cultural
value and that parents living in poverty are a heterogeneous group, some
of whom do not employ harsh, authoritarian parenting practices. Rather,
they employ strict and directive practices necessary to keep children safe
and away from negative environmental influences in low-income neigh
borhoods.
870 N. SORKHABI

Therefore, research is needed to assess the cognition, psychological

characteristics, and family dynamics of authoritarian parents as well as
those of parents with other parenting styles in different cultures to assess
if dysfunctional parenting styles, such as the authoritarian, permissive, or
unengaged styles are associated with positive or negative parental and
family factors.
Childrens Evaluations of Authoritarian Parenting in Individualist and Collec-
tivist Cultures
The third explanation given for differences between individualist and
collectivist cultures in developmental outcomes associated with authori
tarian and authoritative parenting is the benevolent view of the author
itarian parenting style that collectivist children and adolescents are said
to have. For example, Fung (1999) proposed that parenting practices con
sistent with authoritarian parenting such as shaming, social comparisons,
physical punishment (severe enough to cause skin irritation), derogatory
attributions, name-calling, and threats of abandonment are intended by
parents to teach the child to fit in and be an obedient, conforming mem
ber of society. Also, Chao (1994, 2001) suggested that, although children
and adolescents from individualist cultures may view parental strictness
and authoritarian parenting practices as a sign of parental hostility, aggres
sion, mistrust, and dominance, those from collectivist cultures view au
thoritarian parenting as a sign of parental care, concern, and involvement.
Once again, it is crucial to distinguish the type of control being exercised
by authoritative and directive parents versus the authoritarian parent. Very
little research has been directed toward examining possible qualitative
variations in childrens and adolescents judgments of authoritarian, au
thoritative, and permissive forms of control. It is important to understand
adolescents perspectives because adolescents interpretation of their par
ents parenting styles and practices may affect adolescent outcomes.
In contrast to the above proposals by other researchers, in the litera
ture on childrens views and interpretations of authoritarian parenting,
dimensions such as shaming, social comparisons, derogatory attributions,
emphasis on family honor, and arbitrary curtailment of child autonomy
are interpreted as harmful. Children in collectivist cultures equate author
itarian parental control with parental rejection, hostility, and disconnec
tion not parental care, concern, and involvement. Childrens perception
of authoritarian control is also positively related to familial and parent
child conflict and negatively related to harmony and cohesion identified
as central values in collectivist cultures. For example, Rohner and Petten
gill (1985) reported Korean adolescents (N=125) distinguished (measured
by two questionnaires: the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire
by Rohner, 1984, and the Childrens Report of Parental Behavior Inventory
 Parent Socialization Effects 871

by Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970) between authoritarian control,

which is arbitrarily restrictive, and authoritative control, which is reason
ableviewing the former as a sign of parental hostility (r=.20, p<.02)
and rejection (r=.19, p<.04) and the latter of parental warmth (r=.34,
p<.0001) and involvement (involvement was operationalized as paren
tal indifference: r=.28, p<.002). Similarly, Lau and Cheung (1987) found
that high school students (N=713) in Hong Kong who reported restrictive
(i.e., dominating and interfering) parental control which was not organi
zational (i.e., necessary for maintenance of order and coordination of roles
in the family) also reported familial conflict (parental control was mea
sured by Family Environment Scale; Moos & Moos, 1981). Restrictive con
trol was also negatively related to family harmony and cohesion. Recently,
McNeely and Barber (2010) examined the spontaneous views of adoles
cents in many cultures [South Africa (n=394), Australia (n=207), Bangla
desh (n=426), India (n=427), China (n=522), Bosnia (n=475), Germany
(n=381), Palestine (n=401), USA (n=410), and Colombia (n=308)] about
parenting behaviors adolescents thought constituted supportive, loving
parenting by asking adolescents to respond to the following question:
Please list four specific things that your parents/caregivers do that make
you feel loved (p. 610). Adolescents mentioned 25 different behaviors
that parents should and also should not engage in to make adolescents
feel loved. The 25 behaviors were classified into five superordinate cate
gories of emotional and companionate support (talking, listening, encour
aging, praising, showing physical affection), instrumental support (pro
viding necessities, giving money, supporting education, physically taking
care of adolescent), moral guidance and advice (guiding the adolescent on
the right path, advice about what is or is not in the adolescents best inter
est), allowing freedoms (privileges, freedoms to do activities), and show
ing respect or trust for adolescent (parent makes child feel worthy, par
ent feels that adolescents opinion is important, expresses respect, trusts
child). It is important to note that contrary to the assertions of Chao or
Fung about parents authoritarian control, Chinese and other purported
ly collectivist adolescents consider the above authoritative characteristics
to be a sign of parental love and concern. In McNeely and Barbers study,
overall 46% (with a range of 29% in South Africa to 70% in Colombia) of
the adolescents in cultures deemed to be individualist or collectivist re
ported that parental love and concern are evident in parental emotional
and companionate support, including overt displays of physical affection
such as hugging and kissing. The importance of parental affection and ac
commodation of adolescent individuality is so central to adolescents as an
indicator of love that it can also be seen in adolescents responses identify
ing parental instrumental support when adolescents distinguish between
872 N. SORKHABI

parents providing for adolescents physical needs (e.g., buys me clothes)

versus parents providing objects or items that are not necessities, but that
the adolescent desires (e.g., buys me a special dress; McNeely & Barber,
2010). Interestingly, adolescents also believed that parental control was
also a sign of parental love and support (McNeely & Barber, 2010). How
ever, in contrast to the assertions of Chao (1994) and Fung (1999), adoles
cents did not list authoritarian parenting, shaming, name-calling, physi
cal punishment, social comparisons, derogatory attributions, and threats
of abandonment as behaviors that convey parental care, concern, and in
volvement. With respect to control, adolescents distinguished between
parental control that was punitive such as parent yelling, hitting, or coerc
ing (i.e., straining, taxing, and stressing) an adolescent either mentally or
physically versus control necessary and beneficial such as parent giving
them responsibilities or duties, disciplining or correcting an adolescent,
providing guidance and advice, monitoring and setting limits, and worry
ing or being concerned about adolescents whereabouts and future.
Therefore, there is some evidence that adolescents from several cul
tures distinguish between punitive parental control and lack of respon
siveness and affection consistent with the authoritarian parenting style
and rational parental control and sufficient responsiveness and warmth
consistent with authoritative and directive parenting styles. Further cross-
cultural research is needed to examine whether variations in childrens
and adolescents evaluation of different parenting styles and practices are
related to developmental outcomes.
Discussion
Cultural explanations for the prevalence and outcomes associated
with parenting styles in individualist and collectivist cultures were ex
amined. With respect to the prevalence of authoritarian parenting style in
collectivist cultures, generalizations about prevalence of a particular par
enting style within any population cannot be drawn from study samples
which are neither representative nor large enough. Researchers may ex
amine whether the positive developmental outcomes observed in cultures
said to be collectivist are due to the fact that the directive as opposed to
the authoritarian parenting style is being practiced by parents. Directive
parenting style is as demanding but not as nurturant as the authoritative
style. Directive parenting is related to positive outcomes for European-
American children, despite less nurturance than in the authoritative style
because confrontive/firm control exercised by a directive parent is dis
tinct from coercive control exercised by an authoritarian parent. There
fore, the positive outcomes associated with strict parenting by parents
in collectivist cultures may be attributable to directive parenting and not
to authoritarian parenting.
 Parent Socialization Effects 873

The positive emotional and cognitive parental characteristics said to

be associated with authoritarian parenting in collectivist but not individ
ualist cultures, the available research does not appear to support this hy
pothesis. Authoritarian parenting among ethnic groups in the USA and in
collectivist cultures elsewhere seems to be associated with negative fam
ily dynamics, familial conflict, and poor maternal mental healthfindings
that are similar to Baumrinds findings with European-American authori
tarian parents. However, research is needed to examine the emotional and
cognitive characteristics that are associated with authoritarian, directive,
authoritative, permissive, and unengaged parents.
With respect to the positive interpretation of authoritarian parenting
that children and adolescents in collectivist cultures are purported to ren
der, in cultures studied thus far, children and adolescents distinguished
between authoritarian control that is punitive and coercive and authorita
tive and directive control that is rational and supportive. Physical displays
of affection by parents are viewed by children and adolescents in collec
tivist cultures as an important indicator of parental support, love, and
interest. However, research is needed to examine variations in the ways
children and adolescents in different cultures interpret authoritarian, di
rective, authoritative, permissive, and unengaged parenting and what ef
fect these interpretations have on developmental outcomes.
The mechanism proposed to explain the positive effects of authori
tative and directive parenting in individualist and collectivist cultures in
volves the principle of reciprocity. Authoritative and directive parents up
hold the principle of reciprocity by taking their childs perspective and
accommodating the childs needs, preferences, and individuality. The au
thoritative and directive parents in turn require a child to take the parents
perspective and to accommodate social requirements for cooperation. Per
missive and authoritarian parents violate the principle of reciprocity by
failing to understand the childs perspective, which means that their prac
tices are not connected with their childs needs.
References
Ang, R. P. (2006) Effects of parenting style on personal and social variables for Asian
adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 503-511. DOI:10.1037/0002-
9432.76.4.503.
Arditti, J., Burton, L., & Neeves-Botelho, S. (2010) Maternal distress and parenting in
the context of cumulative disadvantage. Family Process, 49, 142-164. DOI:10.1111/
j.1545-5300.2010.01315.x.
Baumrind, D. (1991a) Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P.
E. Cowan & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research. Vol. 2. Hills
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 111-163.
Baumrind, D. (1991b) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. DOI:10.1177/027243169111
1004.
874 N. SORKHABI

Baumrind, D. (2005) Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Di-
rections for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61-69.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010) Effects of preschool parents
power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Sci-
ence and Practice, 10, 157-201. DOI:10.1080/15295190903290790.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1997) Maternal psychological functioning, family pro
cesses, and child adjustment in rural, single-parent, African American families.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 1000-1011. DOI:10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.1000.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. (2005) The contribution of parenting to ethnic and
racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 139-168.
Burton, L. (2007) Childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families: a
conceptual model. Family Relations, 56, 329-345.
Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004) Demand/withdraw communication between
parents and adolescents: connections with self-esteem and substance use. Journal
of Personal and Social Relationships, 21, 125-148. DOI:10.1177/0265407504039843.
Chang, L., Lansford, J. E., Schwartz, D., & Farver, J. M. (2004) Marital quality, ma
ternal depressed affect, harsh parenting, and child externalizing in Hong Kong
Chinese families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 311-318.
Chang, L., McBride-Chang, C., Stewart, S. M., & Au, E. (2003) Life satisfaction, self-
concept, and family relations in Chinese adolescents and children. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 182-189. DOI: 10.1080/01650250244000182.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003) Harsh parenting
in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 17, 598-606. DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598.
Chao, R. K. (1994) Beyond parental control, authoritarian parenting style: under
standing Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Develop-
ment, 45, 1111-1119.
Chao, R. K. (2000) The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American
mothers: relations between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental
practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 233-248. DOI:10.1016/
S0193-3973(99)00037-4.
Chao, R. K. (2001) Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chi
nese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843. DOI:
10.1111/1467-8624.00381.
Cheah, C. S. L., Leung, C. Y. Y., Tahseen, M., & Schultz, D. (2009) Authoritative parent
ing among immigrant Chinese mothers of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 23, 311-320. DOI:10.1037/a0015076.
Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997) Authoritative and authoritarian parenting prac
tices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873. DOI:10.1080/016502597384703.
Chen, X., Liu, M., Li, B., Cen, G., Chen, H., & Wang, L. (2000) Maternal authorita
tive and authoritarian attitudes and mother-child interactions and relationships
in urban China. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 119-126. DOI:10.
1080/016502500383557.
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000) Parental warmth, control, and indul
gence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: a longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401-419. DOI:10.1080/016502599384071.
 Parent Socialization Effects 875

Coohey, C. (2007) Social networks, informal child care, and inadequate supervision
by mothers. Child Welfare, 86, 53-66.
Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002) Au
thoritative and authoritarian mothers parenting goals, attributions, and emo
tions across different childrearing contexts. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 1-26.
DOI:10.1207/S15327922PAR0201_1.
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006) Multiple pathways to compliance: mothers will
ingness to cooperate and knowledge of their childrens reactions to discipline.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 705-708.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987) The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1244-1257. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01455.x.
Florsheim, P. (1997)Chinese adolescent immigrants: factors related to psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 143-163.
Florsheim, P., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (1996) Family processes and risk
for externalizing behavior problems among African American and Hispanic
boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1-9. Doi: 10.1037//0022-
0600X.64.6.1222.
Fung, H. (1999) Becoming a moral child: the socialization of shame among young
Chinese children. Ethos, 27, 1244-1257. DOI:10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.180.
Garg, R., Levin, E., Urajnik, D., & Kauppi, C. (2005) Parenting style and academic
achievement in East Indian and Canadian adolescents. Journal of Comparative Fam-
ily Studies, 36, 653-661.
Hoeve, M., Blokland, A., Semon Dubas, J., Loeber, R., Gerris, J. R. M., & van der Laan, P.
H. (2008) Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 36, 223-235. DOI:10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x.
Jarrett, R. L. (2000) Neighborhood effects models: a view from the neighborhood.
Research in Community Sociology, 10, 305-323.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003)Relationships with par
ents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 6. Developmental psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wi
ley. Pp. 395-419. DOI:10.1002/0471264385.wei0616.
Kim, H., & Gim Chung, R. H. (2003) Relationship of recalled parenting style to self-
perception in Korean American college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
164, 481-492. DOI:10.1080/00221320309597891.
Klein, K., & Forehand, R. (2000) Family processes as resources for African-American
children exposed to a constellation of socio-demographic risk factors. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 53-65.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (1987)Relation between Chinese adolescents perception of
parental control and organization and their perception of parental warmth. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 23, 726-729. DOI:10.1037//0012-1649.23.5.726.
Lee, S. M., Daniels, M. H., & Kissinger, D. B. (2006) Parental influences on adolescent
adjustment: parenting styles versus parenting practices. The Family Journal, 14,
253-259. DOI:10.1177/1066480706287654.
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. L. (1998) Parenting styles and academic achievement: a
cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172.
LeVine, R. A. (2009) Socialization of the child. In R. A. Shweder (Ed.), The child: an
encyclopedic companion. Chicago, IL: Univer. of Chicago Press. Pp. 929-933.
876 N. SORKHABI

Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kunnen, S. E., & van Geert, P. L. C. (2009) Here we go again: a
dynamic systems perspective on emotional rigidity across parent-adolescent con
flicts. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1364-1375. DOI:10.1037/a0016713.
Maccoby, E. E. (1999) The uniqueness of the parent-child relationship. In W. A. Collins
& B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts: Minnesota symposium on
child psychology. Vol. 30. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 157-175.
Mandara, J., Johnston, J. S., Murray, C. B., & Varner, F. (2008) Marriage, money, and
African American mothers self-esteem. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1188-
1199. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00559.x.
Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002)The development of an empirical typology of
African American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 318-337.
DOI:10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.318.
Markus, H. R. (2008) Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: toward a unified theory of
race and ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63, 651-670. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.
63.8.651.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. DOI:10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010) Cultures and selves: a cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430. DOI:10.1177/1745691610375557.
Markus, H. R., Mullally, P. R., & Kitayama, S. (1997)Selfways: diversity in modes of
cultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in
context: culture, experience, self-understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer.
Press. Pp. 13-61.
Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N. A., & Hiraga, Y. (1996) Neither too sweet nor
too sour: problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African Amer
ican adolescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.
tb01847.x.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2004) Culture and psychology. (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
McBride-Chang, C., & Chang, L. (1998) Adolescent-parent relations in Hong Kong:
parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. The Journal of Ge-
netic Psychology, 159, 421-436. DOI:10.1080/00221329809596162.
McLoyd, V. (1990) The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:
psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional problems. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 311-346.
McNeely, C. A., & Barber, B. K. (2010) How do parents make adolescents feel loved?
Perspectives on supportive parenting from adolescents in 12 cultures. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 25, 601-631.
Mosby, L., Rawls, A. W., Meehan, A. J., & Pettinari, C. J. (1999) Troubles in interracial
talk about discipline: an examination of African American and childrearing narra
tives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 489-510.
Nguyen, P. V. (2008) Perceptions of Vietnamese fathers acculturation levels, parent
ing styles, and mental health outcomes in Vietnamese American adolescent im
migrants. Social Work, 53, 337-346.
Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985) Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child
compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326-1334.
 Parent Socialization Effects 877

Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002) Parenting styles and child be
havior in African-American families of preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 31, 272-277. DOI:10.1207/153744202753604548.
Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996) Parenting style
and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement:
ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289-305.
DOI:10.1007/BF01857770.
Rohner, R. P., & Pettengill, S. M. (1985) Perceived parental acceptance-rejection
and parental control among Korean adolescents. Child Development, 56, 524-528.
DOI:10.2307/1129739.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2001) Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individualist
and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding the transmission of
values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 202-212. DOI:10.1177/0022022101
032002007.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2006) Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collec
tivist groups: associations with maternal emotion and cognition and childrens
self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 68-78. DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.68.
Sharma, M., Sharma, N., & Amrita, Y. (2010)Depression in relation to parenting style
and self-efficacy among female adolescents. Indian Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 6, 208-220.
Sorkhabi, N., & Baumrind, D. (2009) Authority and obedience. In R. A. Shweder (Ed.),
The child: an encyclopedic companion. Chicago, IL: Univer. of Chicago Press. Pp. 81-
86.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Zaman, R. M., McBride-Chang, C., Rao, N., Ho, L. M., &
Fielding, R. (1999) Functional parenting in Pakistan. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 23, 747-770.
Stewart, S. M., Rao, N., Bond, M. H., McBride-Chang, C., Fielding, R., & Kennard, B.
D. (1998) Chinese dimensions of parenting: broadening Western predictors and
outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 345-358.
Supple, A. J., & Small, S. A. (2006) The influence of parental support, knowledge, and
authoritative parenting on Hmong and European American adolescent develop
ment. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1214-1232. DOI:10.1177/0192513X06289063.
Taylor, R. D. (2000) An examination of the association of African-American mothers
perceptions of their neighborhoods with their parenting and adolescent adjust
ment. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 267-287. DOI:10.1177/0095798400026003001.
Taylor, R. D., Roberts, D., & Jacobson, L. (1997) Stressful life events, psychological
well-being, and parenting in African-American families. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 11, 45-56.
Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2008) Maternal predictors of rejecting parenting and
early adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 247-
259.
Turiel, E. (2002) The culture of morality: social development, context, and conflict. Cam
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press.
Varner, F., & Mandara, J. (2009) Marital transitions and changes in African-American
mothers depressive symptoms: the buffering role of financial resources. Journal of
Family Psychology, 23, 839-847. DOI:10.1037/a0017007.
Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., & Chen, H. (2007)The role of parents control in ear
ly adolescents psychological functioning: a longitudinal investigation in the
878 N. SORKHABI

United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592-1610. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2007.01085.x.
Zhang, S., & Anderson, S. G. (2010) Low-income single mothers community violence
exposure and aggressive parenting practices. Child and Youth Services Review, 32,
889-895. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.02.010.
Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004) Chinese childrens effortful
control and dispositional anger/frustration: relations to parenting styles and chil
drens social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 352-366. DOI:10.1037/0012-
1649.40.3.352.

Accepted April 17, 2012.