Multiple Determinants of Parenting: Predicting Individual Differences in Maternal Parenting Behavior with Toddlers

Abstract

SYNOPSIS Objective.A comprehensive understanding of individual differences in maternal parenting behaviors cannot be realized without consideration of multiple determinants of parenting within the same study. The goal of the present study was to examine the association of 3 categories of determinants of parenting (i.e., parent personality, contextual sources of stress and support, and child effects) to individual differences in maternal parenting behaviors. Design. Supportive and controlling parenting and child social responsiveness were observed during 2 free-play sessions when toddlers (N = 140) were 30 to 36 months old. Mothers completed questionnaires measuring personality and contextual sources of stress and support. Results. More maternal supportive behaviors were predicted by higher levels of child social responsiveness. More maternal control was associated with lower socioeconomic status, more work outside of the home, more extraversion, and more neuroticism. Conclusions. Because the determinants of parenting that predicted maternal controlling behaviors were different from those that predicted supportive parenting behaviors, examining how multiple determinants of parenting relate to different aspects of parenting behavior is necessary to more fully understand individual difference in parenting behaviors.

Differentiating between Confrontive and Coercive Kinds of Parental Power-Assertive Disciplinary Practices

“…Conceptualizing 'control' as inherently intrusive and domineering, as Grolnick and Pomerantz [2009] did, or condemning all kinds of power assertion, confrontive as well as coercive, as overly 'controlling,' as Smith [2010] did, obscure the differential effects on children's development of coercive and confrontive kinds of power-assertive disciplinary practices. As Baumrind et al [2010] found, power assertion in the form of confrontive behavioral control does not have the adverse effects that these scholars attributed to all kinds of power-assertive disciplinary techniques, which I attribute only to coercive and not to confrontive power assertion.…”

“…Hoffman's [1960Hoffman's [ , 1963 'power assertion, ' Grolnick andPomerantz's [2009] 'control,' andSmith's [2010] 'controlling' behavior all exemplify what I refer to as coercive kinds of control or power assertion, because, unlike what I refer to as confrontive power assertion, coercive power-assertive constructs are characterized by the use of force unqualified by the use of reasoning or support. Controlling behavior, as defined by Smith, or control, as described by Grolnick, are indeed likely to 'backfire,' but because they are unresponsive and coercive, not because they are power-assertive.…”

“…Control as defined by Grolnick and Pomerantz refers to what I define as coercive control, and thus, as they surmise, is likely to 'backfire,' whereas confrontive control as I have defined it earlier, although equally forceful and compelling, is not domineering or antithetical to the use of negotiation or inductive reasoning, and therefore, is compatible with support of a child's autonomy. Similarly, by operationalizing controlling as overcontrolling and overdirective, Smith [2010] was unlikely to find beneficial effects of any kind of power assertion. Smith [2010, p. 6] created a 'controlling maternal behavior summary score' from the mean of intrusiveness and directiveness: intrusiveness was described as 'overstimulating and overcontrolling,' and directiveness was described as 'allowing for few spontaneously introduced actions from children.'…”

“…Many parenting experts [e.g., Grolnick, 2003;Hoffman, 1960;Kochanska, 1995;Smith, 2010] imply or state that power assertion (or parental control) and induction are antithetical practices in how they support children's autonomy, so that if parents wish to support their children's autonomy they should minimize their use of power assertion or control and maximize their use of induction. Grolnick [2003] conveyed by the title of her book, The Psychology of Parental Control: How Well-Meant Parenting Backfires , that parental control, although wellintended, is inherently harmful.…”

“…Although the authoritative parenting style is consensually acknowledged to be beneficial [Steinberg, 2001], and disciplinary practices that are demanding and power-assertive are a fundamental component of the authoritative disciplinary style, demanding and power-assertive parenting practices per se are still viewed pejoratively by many developmental scholars [e.g., Grolnick, 2003;Kochanska, 1995;Lewis, 1981;Smith, 2010]. Although the distinctive benefits of the authoritative style are affirmed by these scholars they are attributed exclusively to its responsive component, with the positive contribution of its demanding component denied or discounted (see e.g.…”