Article for Week 3

7/30/2019 Article for Week 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-for-week-3 1/32

Psycholog ica l B u l l e t i n1999, Vol. 125, No. 2, 223-254

Copyr ight 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-2909/99/$3.00

Enduring and Different : A Meta-Analysis of the Similarityin Parents' Child Rearing

George W . Holden an d Pamela C. MillerUniversity of Texas at A u s t i n

The assessment of ch i ld-rear ing bel iefs and behavior has predominan t ly focused on qual i t i es and

charac ter i s t ics bel ieved to ref lec t consis t en t , enduring qual i t i es of paren t ing—the s imi lar i ty in ch i ld

rear ing . This review evalua te s the e vidence for s imi lari ty and di f feren ces among 3 types of ch i ld-rear ing

data and inc lude s comparisons across t ime, ch i ldren , and s i tua t ions. B o th re la t ive s tabi l ity and mean level

differences were f o u n d in all 3 domains. The most similari ty was found in the across-time arid

across-children domains, a l though it depended on the child-rearing construct an d methodology used. It

i s argued tha t a t t en t ion to the var iabil i ty an d change in ch i ld rearing m ust be incorpora ted in to theore t ica l

models of paren t ing to bet t er un ders tand the na tu re of ch i ld rear ing and, in tu rn , paren ta l inf lue nce on

c h i l d re n ' s d e v e l o p m e n t .

Is a mother characterized as sensit ive when her son is an i n fan t ,

equal ly s en s it ive when he reaches preschool, e lementary school, or

high school? Does a fa the r ex h ibi t the s ame amou n t of a t t en t ion ,

love, and firm discipline to his 5-year-old son as to his 8-year-old

daughter? And is a parent 's irritability in the supermarket diag-

nos t ic of the q u a l i ty of caregiving provided in the home? Each of

thes e q u e s t ion s repres en ts a different face of the is s u e con cern in g

the s imilarity of parental behavior.

This question is crit ical fo r applied reasons as w e l l as for

discovering the role that parents play in their children's develop-

m e n t . The rigidity with which individuals are t ied to their child-

rearing beliefs and practices is an important issue for clinical

psychologis ts who work with children exhibiting behavior prob-

lems. If paren ts are to be effect ive therapis ts fo r their children(Kazdin , 1987) or adolescen ts (Sc hmidt , Liddle, & Dakof, 1996),

then they nee d to adopt and maint ain new behavioral repertoires .

Similarly, developme ntal, social, school, and comm un ity psychol-

ogis ts working to prevent a range of social problems including

child in jury (child maltreatment, poisoning, accidents) , youth mor-

bidity (substance abuse, obesity), school failure (low performance,

dropouts) , t e en age s ex u a l promis cu i ty (STDs , pregn an cy) , an d

antisocial behavior (aggression, gang membership) are concerned

wit h th e i s s u e of mod ify in g paren ta l behavior.

According to human behavioral geneticis ts , the s imilarity of

parenting is an especially t imely theoretical issue. Plomin (1990,

1994) and others (e.g., Hoffman, 1991) have argued that to under-

George W. Holden and Pam ela C. Mil ler , Depar tmen t of Psycho logy,

Universi ty of Texas at Aust in . Pamela C. Mil ler i s now a t the Depar tment

of Psychology, Universi ty of Houston .

Preparation of this art icle was supported in part by a National Insti tute

of Chi ld Heal th an d H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t G r a n t 1 RO1 HD26574-01A1.

We thank El izabeth Thompson, who served as a second coder, as well as

Rebecca B ig ler , Anne Cameron, Ted Dix, Judi th Langlo is , Wil liam Swann ,

Ross Thompson, and John Weisz for thei r helpfu l comments .

Correspondence concern ing th is ar t ic le should be addressed to George

W. Holden , Depar tment of Psychology, Universi ty of Texas, Aust in , Texas

78712. Elec t ron ic mai l may be sen t to ho lden@ psy.u texas.edu .

s tand phenotypic differences among siblings, parents' roles in

creating shared and especially nonshared en viron men ts n eed to be

explicated. The concept of nonshared child-rearing environment

recogn izes tha t paren ts may in te rac t wi th or s t ru c tu re a child's

physical and social world differen tly from that of his or her s ibling.

Although such differences may be derived from parental charac-

teris tics or e licited by the child 's a t tributes or predispositions

(Scarr & McCartn ey , 1983), siblings nevertheless encounter dis-

t inc t as well as similar child-rearing experiences (e.g., Anderson,

Hetherington, Reiss , & Howe, 1994; Brod y, S ton eman , & McCoy,

1994).

This particular theoretical emphasis on child-rearing differen ces

comes in s tark contras t to the his torically promin ent view of

parents . Theories and popular beliefs about child-rearing effectsposit that parents influence their children in a varie ty of ways

(Holden, 1997; Maccoby & Mart in , 1983). One way is th rou gh

habitual patterns of in teraction. "In theories of child-rearing, pa-

rental behavior is as s u med to have effects on children through a

history of experiences. There is faith [italics added] that, overtime,

parental influences lead to generalized behavior tendencies that

have s ome d u rabi l i ty" (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxier, & Chapman ,

1983, p. 502). Social-learning approaches (e.g., Patterson, 1982) as

well as family-systems theories (e.g., Minuchin, 1985) both as-

s u me tha t paren ta l effects occu r th rou gh recu rren t in te rac t ion s .

"We can as s u me tha t the family system, like any system, has

self-stabilizing properties. . .Families s tabilize arou nd habitu al pat-

te rn s of in te rac t ion ; thu s the re is con t in u i ty over t ime in thefamilial forces that support th e dis tinctive personality patterns of

indiv idual children" (Maccoby, 1984, p. 326). If children's devel-

opmental outcomes are affected by recurrent in teractions, then

stable patterns of child rearing are assumed to be responsible for

l in k s be tween paren t in g practices and child outcomes.

Invariant views of child rearing and families are appealing in

that they provide a parsimonious model of parenting. Methodolog-

ically, i t is a lso far more convenient for researchers to embrace

such a view. If parental behavior were variable or changing, then

making assessments of parental behavior would be much more

diff icul t , t ime con s u min g , an d cos t ly . Even more fu n d amen ta l is

223



224 HOLDEN AND MILLER

the theoretical havoc that could be associated with an u n s table

view of child rearing. The assumption of s imilarity in parenting

means that child-rearing behaviors assessed at one point in t ime

can be assumed to reflect prior, as well as fu t u r e , child-rearing

experiences. In turn, one can rela te those child-rearing data to

indexes of child behavior or ou tcomes as a way of assessing

parental influence (e .g. , Baumrind, 1971).

These theoretical an d empirical positions have contributed to ac o m m o n as s u mpt ion of and focu s on the unchanging characteris-

tics of child rearing. An example of this assumption made explicit

is ". . .parents h ave fun dame ntal, pervasive, and en during child-

rear ing orientations" (Roberts , Block, & Block, 1984, p. 595).

Similarly, Dunn, Plomin, an d Nettles (1985) concluded that ma-

ternal behavior was "strikingly consistent" toward two siblings

w h e n they were observed at the same age. Another example of the

proclivity of researchers to adopt a s table view of paren ting is the

p r o m i n e n c e of the trait approach to parenting. This orientation

toward similarity in child rearing has been so central to concep-

t ions of child rearing that i t may have precluded reviews on the

topic; we were unable to locate any.

Th efu n d ame n ta l problem with as s u min g s imila r i ty

isthat

it

ma y impede asking questions about varia tion an d change. Impor-

t an t in q u ir ie s focu s in g on the origins o f child-rearing behavior,

c ircu ms tan ces s u rrou n d in g chan ge , an d ef f icac iou s wa ys of mod-

i fy in g parental behavior have not received the a t tention they de-

serve. Given the importance of the assumption of s imilarity, as

well as the long-term debate in personality psychology over the

s i tua t ional specificity of adu lt behavior (e .g. , Be rn & Allen, 1974;

Eps te in , 1979; Mis che l , 1979; Mis che l & Shoda, 1995), th e lack of

crit ical a t tention devoted to this issue as it pertains to child rearing

is somewhat puz zlin g. This neglect is even m ore ironic given that

th e issue of s tability an d chan ge has lon g been recogn ized by

developmental psychologis ts to be the core issue of the discipline

(Cairns, 1979; Kagan, 1971). However, that discussion has been

l imited to on ly on e side of the developing dyad—the children.It is our con ten t ion tha t it is t ime to broaden th e discussion of

stabili ty, change, and variation to include parents . Systematic

variabili ty an d chan ge in paren t in g has not been adequately ap -

preciated or investigated. In an a t tempt to redress that omission,

th e purpose of this article is to review th e empirical li terature

con cern in g th e similarity o f paren t in g an d then discuss th e impli-

cations of those f in d in gs . To do tha t , we begin by clar ifying th e

terminology, then we review th e evidence as fou n d in the litera-

t u re . Th e f inal section addresses implications of the an a lys es an d

direc t ions for f u ture research.

Taxonomies of Similarity in Parenting

Domains of Similarity

Th e question How similar is parenting? actually entails three

components . The most commonly examined approach to the ques-

t ion concerns the s tability of parental behavior across t ime: Do

parents rear their children s imilarly week to week, month af ter

m o n t h , an d across th e years? In addition to tha t lon g i tu d in a l

question, there are two other important questions inherent in the

issue of child-rearing s imilarity. To wha t ex ten t do parents rear

their offspring in the s ame way? Given tha t 80% of U.S. families

have two or more ch i ld ren (Du n n , 1992), how similar is parenting

across children within a family? Although some child-rearing

manuals recommend that parents should act the same way toward

each offspring to minimize s ibling rivalry (Faber & Mazlish,

1987), to what degree is child rearing affected by a child 's age,

gender, temperament, and specific behavior? The third aspect of

similari ty concerns whether child rearing varies systematically

across s ituations or different contexts . More specifically, is child

rearing affected by a range of contextu al variables , such as the t imeof day, m o n t h of the year, th e location of the in te rac t ion , th e

presence of others , or the nature of the in teraction? Child-rearing

similari ty in each of these three domains is discussed further

below.

Child Rearing Across Time

L ongi tudinal analyses focu s on the stability of a behavior or

psychological construct. Stability is a s lippery concept when ap-

plied to human development as i t embodies multiple forms and

terminologies. Most commonly, s tability is defined as an individ-

ual's tendency to remain behaviorally s imilar over t ime (e.g. ,

B a u m r i n d , 1989; Cairns, 1979; Emmerich, 1964; Rutter, 1984).

Several types of s tability have been identif ied; for the purposes of

this article, discussion is limited primarily to two kinds. Absolute

stability refers to behaving in the same way on two or more

occasions. For example, do parents h u g — o r h i t — t h e i r preadoles-

cents as frequent ly as they did when their children were toddlers?

Evidently, given th e rapidity of on togen e t ic chan ges in children

an d their considerable consequences on parenting, such an orien-

tat ion on surface-level behaviors is too limited to adequately

capture what may be con t in u ou s abou t paren ta l behavior . Ques-

t ions con cern in g con s is ten cy in absolute values focu s on the mean

level of the variable an d therefore u tilize analyses of variance

(ANOVAs) or t t e s t s to d e te rmin e whe ther s ign if ican t chan ge has

occurred.

An alternative type of similarity, interindividual consistency,cen te rs on the rela tive placement of an individual within a g r o u p of

people. Here the question becomes Does the parent maintain over

time his or her relative position compared with other parents?

Such an an a lys is tak es in to accou n t d eve lopmen ta l chan ge in the

child. Th e appropriate s ta tis t ical index of this type of similarity is

th e Pearson correlation coefficient, as i ts computation relies

heav i ly on the re la t ive ran k in g be tween in d ivid u a ls .

As s es s men ts of in te r in d ivid u a l con s is ten cy can focu s on

surface-level behaviors but also may take in to account develop-

m e n t a l change in the parent an d child. Displaying different behav-

iors (e.g., kissing an infant , ta lking affect ionately to a preschooler)

tha t reflect th e s ame u n d er ly in g con s t ru c t (e.g., pos i t ive affect) is

an ex ample of this second type of s tability. If the t ime span

be tween tw o assessments is lon g en ou gh , it is u n rea l is t ic to expect

th e same behavioral manifes ta tion of the construct. Indeed, n o

parent continues to provide the same caregiving behavior with

normal ly d eve lopin g ch i ld ren . Good paren ts can n o t con t in u e to

en gage in the same behavior an d main ta in th e appella tion of

effect ive parents . Rather, such parents must modify their behavior

in response to con tex tu a l c ircu ms tan ces an d on togen e t ic chan ges

in the ir ch ild ren . Con s e q u en t ly , it is likely that measures of in ter-

i n d ivid u a l con s is ten cy represent a more appropriate approach for

assessing s imilarity in child rearing.

A third type of con t in u i ty is tha t of functional equivalence,



SIMILARITY IN PARENTING 225

whereby the functional properties of behaviors or parent-child

rela tionships do not change (Bern & Fu n d er , 1978). Althou gh the

particular behavioral expression m ay differ, th e u n d e r l y i n g f u n c -

tion of the behavior remains the same. Examples of fu n c t ion a l

rela tionships include well-at tuned versus disharmonious dyadic

states (Isabella & Bels k y , 1991; Leyendecker, Lamb, Fracasso,

Scholmerich, & Larson, 1997), cooperative rela tionships (Parpal &

Maccoby, 1985), seductive in teraction patterns (Srou fe, Jacobvitz,

Mangelsdorf, DeAngelo, & Ward, 1985), or discordant or re jecting

relations (Rohner, 1986; Statt in & Klackenberg, 1992). The most

frequently investigated example of fu n c t ion a l eq u iva len ce comes

from res earch ex amin in g parent-child attachment rela tionships.

Waters (1978) fou n d that discrete a t tachment behaviors (e.g.,

smiling, approaching, holding) showed lit t le s tability. However,

when the fu n c t ion a l re la t ion s h ip was an a lyzed (i.e., s ecu re vs .

insecure a t tachments) , there was impressive s tability of a t tachment

classificat ions across a 6-month period.

U n for t u n a t e ly , s u bs eq u en t s tu d ies have n ot f o u n d th e same

degree of continuity in a t tachment rela tionships. Thompson (1998)

reported that out of 15 studies addressing this question, a broad

range o f short-term stability es timates was reported. I t appears thata major reason for variations in the a t tachment rela tionship s tems

from changes in life circumstances, such as alterations in employ-

m e n t s ta tu s or s tress levels (e .g., Thompson, Lamb, & Estes, 1982;

V a u g h n , Egeland, Sroufe, & Waters , 1979).

Child Rearing Across Children an d Across Situations

Change is the term commonly used as the antonym to s tability

or consis tency. However, change implies a permanent modifica-

t ion or transformation. For some questions about parenting, the

q u es t ion is not Did parenting change? but rather Are parents

capable of modifying their behavior under the circumstances?

Thus, variability more accurately reflects the focus of concern. Tow h a t extent do parents vary their child-rearing behavior or think-

in g when in te rac t in g with the ir different children or unde r differing

situations? This capacity to modulate or modify child-rearing

th in k in g or behavior has recen t ly begu n to attract more a t tention

from researchers, as is discussed below.

Methodological Issues

I t is now well recognized that results from investigations con-

cerning the components of s tability and change are closely linked

to methodology (e.g., Radke-Yarrow, 1989). The level of analysis

(e.g., global attitudes or specific behavioral responses to a child) is

l ikely to affect the degree of s imilarity found. Single acts of

specific, discrete behavior are often highly unstable. Molar behav-

ioral ra tings or aggregate scores are more apt to capture interindi-

v idual similarity than molecular codes or single observations

(Cairns & Green, 1979; Epstein, 1980).

Docum entation for parental s imilarity an d difference is not ju s t

closely aligned to methodology, it is also strongly affiliated with

th e theoretical approach taken and the particular questions ad-

dressed. The n ex t section illustrates how both similarity and dif-

ference in child rearing can be fou n d in the empirical research

li terature.

Evidence for Similarities an d Diffe r e nce s

in Child Rearing

Inspection of the child-rearing literature provides evidence fo r

both similarities an d d if fe ren ces . At a theoretical level, some

approaches toward paren ts assume a largely s ta tic and un chan ging

view, whereas o the rs h igh l igh t th e m u t a b le n a t u r e of child rearing.

Conflic ting information about s imilarity an d variation in paren t in gca n also be fou n d in empirical research concerning the determi-

n a n t s of paren ta l behavior .

Two Contrasting Models of Child Rearing

Different u n d er ly in g approaches to the s t u d y of parenting are

likely to con ta in d is c repan t v iews abou t th e similarity in ch i ld

rearing. For example, the trait an d child-effects approaches repre-

sent two sharply contras ting models (Holden, 1997; Maccoby,

1992). The trait approach is the oldest and mos t promin en t ap-

proach to the s tu d y of parents . It depicts th e es s en t ia l in gred ien t of

paren t in g as b e i n g fou n d in recu rren t pa t te rn s of behavior; th e

particular pattern embodied by a parent therefore represents the

essence of that parent 's child rearing. A series of different paren t-ing traits has been postulated as early as 1931 and variously

labeled as syn dromes, types, s tyles , or patterns. Examples of these

typologies and their creators are lis ted in Table 1. Several of the

typologies , most notably Baumrind's triarchy of child-rearing

s ty les and those assessing acceptance and rejection, continue to be

actively investigated (e .g. , Rohner, 1986; Steinberg, L amb orn,

Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992).

Each new categorization of parents has served to promote the

focu s on the trait- like and s table characteris tics of parenting. A

trait is in tended to represent the essence of the parent cu lled across

time and s ituations. Like any personality trait , a parental s tyle is

thought to provide a better representation of that parent than any

single or grou p of particular behavior(s) because it is a sum maryvariable. As such, the trait approach is in tended to reflect not one

interaction but ra ther the "season's average."

One hazard with the trait approach is that i t can lead to errone-

ou s con c lu s ion s of similarity—across t ime, children, an d s i tu a-

t ion s . As Darling an d Steinberg (1993) recognized in their discus-

sion of traits , li t t le is k n o w n a b o u t th e similarity of paren t in g s ty le s

across t ime. Thomas and Chess (1977) were sharper in their

con cern :

Our quarrel wi th the [ t ra i t ] formula t ions ar i ses when they assume

an "all or no th ing" charac ter , when they ar e credi ted wi th exclusive

sign i ficance in de termining the ch i ld 's psychological development .

Simi lar ly , these concep ts can be cr i t ic ized whe n the paren ta l a t t ribu tes

are reined and given a global dimension. I t is insuff icient and inac-

curate to characterize a parent in an overall , diffuse way as "reject-

ing," "overprotective," "insecure," e tc . A paren t may be u n s y m p a -

thet ic and an tagonis t ic to certain of the child's charac ter i s t ics an d

accepting an d approving of o thers; ove rpro tec t ive an d res t r ic t ive of

some of the child's act iv i ti es bu t no t of o thers; insecure and un sure in

specific areas of child-care responsibili t ies an d self-con fident and

assured in others, (pp. 78-79)

In s tark contras t to the trait conceptualization of the parent-

child rela tionship lies the child -effec ts approach (B ell, 1968; B ell

& Chapman , 1986). Ins tead of highlighting parental s imilarity,

investigators in this genre recognized the behavioral adjustments




Table 1

A Chronological Listing of Some of the Parenting Trait Schemes Published Since 1931

Author Trait

Levy (1931, 1943)

Watson (1934)

Hattick & Stowell (1936)

Symonds (1938)Baldwin, Kalhorn , & Breese (1945)

Lafore (1945)

Crandall & Preston (1955)

Brody (1956)

Sears, Maccoby, & Levin (1957)

Schaefer (1959)

Spitz (1965)

M o u l t o n , B u r n s t e in , Liberty, & Altucher (1966)

Ainsworth , Bell, & Stayton (1971)

B a u m r i n d (1971)

Martin (1981)

Koch, Chandler, Harder, & Paget (1982)

Pulkkinen (1982)

Abelman (1985)

Sameroff & Feil (1985)

Raphael-Leff (1986)

Metcalf &Gaier(1987)

McCord (1988)

Over-protection

La x vs. strict home training

Baby the child, push the child, or appropriate behavior

Acceptance, rejectionRejectant, casual, or acceptant (varying on dimensions of democratic to autocratic and

indulgen t to nonchalant)

Dictators, cooperators, temporizers, or appeasers

Affect ion, protection, coactive control, coercive control

Sensitive, less sensitive, insufficiently sensitive, or hypersensitive

Aggressive, &/or punitive, permissive/strict, warm, responsible

Accepting, overindulgent, protective-indulgent, overprotective, possessive, authoritarian-

dictatorial, demanding antagonistic, rejecting, neglecting, indifferent, detached, freedom,

democratic, cooperative

Rejec t ing , overpermissive, hostility in guise of anxiety, oscillation, cyclical mood swings,

hostility consciously compensated

Mother vs . father disciplinary dominance & high vs. low affection

Sensitive vs. insensitive

Authori tar ian , authoritative, permissive (and other subtypes)

Involved vs . autonomous

Repression, denial, intellecrualization, displacement, or projection as parental defense styles

Child vs. parent centered, guidance vs. selfish treatment

Induct ive vs. sensitizing discipline

Symbiotic, categorical, compensating, perspectivistic levels of parental thinking

Facilitator vs. regulator

Upward striving, overprotective, indifferent, conflicted

Aggressive, nonaggressive, or punitive

that parents are capable of making. Studies adopting this perspec-

tive have shown that parenting is affected by such characteristics

as the children's age and gender, behavior, appearance, tempera-

ment, and activity level (e.g., Anderson, Lytton, & Romney, 1986;

Fagot & K a v a n a u g h , 1993; Maccoby, 1984). More sophisticated

investigations along these lines have illustrated how child-rearingpractices reflect the interaction of child and parent characteristics

( B u g e n t a l & Shennum, 1984; Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989).

Th e source of much parental behavior is not an internal trait-like

orientation but rather reactions to children's characteristics and

behavior. Hence, according to this perspective, what similarity

parents display would be a reflection of the stability in their

children's behavior and characteristics.

Child-effect researchers do not maintain that this approach

portrays th e ful l picture of parent-child interactions. Rather, it

represents one aspect of a more general model of reciprocal

interactions or transactional models (Bell & Chapman, 1986). The

central theme of such models is that parental behavior reflects a

j o i n t product of parent an d child characteristics. It is based on the

history of interactions and may become transformed over time.

From this perspective, parenting should be thought of as a rela-

t ional rather than an individual difference construct, an d therefore

child rearing will vary when interacting with different children in

a family.

The trait and child-effect approaches are just two of several

different conceptualizations of parents that have guided develop-

m e n t of the empirical literature (for other approaches, see Holden,

1997). However, these two models of parents contrast most dra-

matically in their conceptual orientations concerning th e similarity

of child rearing. Conflict over this same issue ca n also be found in

the research literature focusing on the determinants of parental

behavior.

Determinants of Parenting

At an empirical level, investigations into parental behaviorreveal evidence fo r both similarity an d difference. In fact, th e

question of similarity or difference in behavior is closely related to

the issue of what determines or influences behavior (Mischel,

1977). If parental behavior is determined by only a few variables

tha t are likely to be unchanging or have a pervasive influence on

parenting, then child rearing should be characterized by more,

rather than less, similarity. However, if child rearing is susceptible

to a multitudeof external influences, or even just one variable that

u n d ergoes considerable change (i.e., child behavior), then a view

of similarity must be carefully reconsidered.

Sources of Child-Rearing Similarity

A number of categories of determinants of parental behavior

have been identified. For example, Holden (1997) found more

than 30 variables that have been shown empirically to influence

parenting. The variables can be most readily organized into parent

characteristics, child characteristics, and contextual variables (e.g.,

Belsky, 1984). Depending on the variable and the quality of that

variable, a particular determinant could either serve to promote

similarity or difference.

Determinants that promote similarity exert constraints on par-

e n t s to maintain similar behaviors. The most general of these is

cul ture . Culture ca n play th e function of prescribing, guiding, an d




limiting child rearing (Born s te in , 1991, 1995; Whiting & Child,

1953). These constraints typically work through parental beliefs

an d a t t i tu d es —s u ch as defining when and how to care fo r infants,

what child characteristics ar e desirable, an d specifying when par-

t icu la r parenting practices (e.g., n u r tu ran ce , encouraging indepen-

dence, physical punishment) are accepted, expected, or perhaps

taboo (Bornstein, 1995; Valsiner, 1989). More generally, cultural

orientations toward family versus work, maternal employment,an d child care provide important guides for the degree of parental

in vo lvemen t . These perceived cultural mandates as well as the

specific adaptations made within a particular ecocultural niche of

the family have been labeled parental ethnotheories (Harkness &

Super, 1995).

At the same time, culture can serve to prescribe variation and

chan ge in parenting. These cultural recommendations are likely to

come in the form of widely held instrumental an d descriptive

beliefs about children an d parenting (Stolz, 1967). A number of

cu l tu ra l prescriptions are related to the child's age. For instance,

such culturally guided child-rearing practices may concern when

children should be weaned from th e breast or sleep separately from

paren ts (Meldrum, 1982; Morelli, Rogoff, Oppenheim, & Gold-

smith, 1992). Or the prescriptions in some cultures may involve

accelerating toilet training or attempting to suppress early motor

development (Valsiner, 1989). Consequently, ethnotheories repre-

sent a homogenizing influence on parents within a particular

society or group.

In a similar fashion, membership in a social class, ethnic, or

religious group can provide implicit or explicit models of child

rearing an d constraints on individual variation in parenting; it is

likely that these subcultural divisions can be as potent or even

stronger than more generalized cultural influences. The impact of

social class on child-rearing values has been best revealed by Kohn

(e.g., 1979), who fou n d that working-class parents value obedience

an d conformity in their children in contrast to the autonomy an d

initia tive valued by parents who occupy a higher socioeconomics ta tus . An example of an explicit model of child rearing can be

fou n d in conservative Protestants' subscription to the belief that

corporal punishment of young children is a disciplinary practice

beneficial for their socialization (Ellison, Bartowski, & Segal,

1996; Thompson & Miller, 1997).

At the individual level, a number of variables can promote

similarity in child rearing. Most important are child-rearing be-

liefs—those cognitions that represent values, attitudes, percep-

t ions, expectations, or ideas about children or child-rearing prac-

tices (Goodnow, 1995; Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Holden, 1995;

McGillicuddy-DeLisi & Sigel, 1995; Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi,

& Goodnow, 1992). If the belief is sufficient ly strong such that it

becomes a guiding principle for that parent or it colors the quality

of interactions with th e child, then that cognition provides a potent

determinant fo r similarity. Fo r example, if a parent believes that a

high level of involvement, constant monitoring, or power-assertive

discipline is an essential parenting ingredient for child socializa-

tion, then similarity along those dimensions would be expected.

Parents' perceptions can also promote similarity. If a father

regularly attributes his child's noncompliance to an internal dis-

position, or if a mother's belief that she has little ability to control

her children resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy, then those per-

ceptions would likely promote similarity across time, children, and

situations. The work by Bugental an d her colleagues has best

documented th e role that maternal attributions of perceived control

play when interacting with children. In several different experi-

men ta l demonstrations, they have shown that mothers with lo w

perceived control feel threatened by unresponsive children and act

accordingly (e.g., Bugental, Blue, & Lewis, 1990; Bugental &

S h e n n u m , 1984).

Th e cognition that ha s most recently been linked to the idea of

similarity in child rearing is an individual's internal representationof self an d others. These ideas ar e believed to stem initially from

early attachment relationships bu t reflect th e parents' current men-

ta l representation of their childhood relationships with their ow n

parents. In t u r n , th e representations serve to prime parents with

expectations about their children that then influence ho w they

approach their own children (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy,

1985). Although these internal ideations of the self an d child ar e

potentially malleable, at least on e study has fou n d that these

representations were stable in women from pregnancy through th e

time when their children reached 11 months of age (Benoit &

Parker, 1994).

This is not to say that parental beliefs an d perceptions funct ion

only to promote similarity. Just as culture ca n play dual roles inprescribing similarity or difference, so too can parents' beliefs an d

attitudes. Favoritism for one child over another, rigid sex-role

attitudes, beliefs about how parenting should change with th e

child's age, or beliefs that child rearing should be modified in

public settings versus private ones are examples of how individual

beliefs could promote different ial behavior. However, we suspect

that for the most part, beliefs serve to promote similarity.

Certain adult personality characteristics are also likely to result

in greater similarity. I t is not difficult to picture how continuity in

paren t in g would be observed in a father with a chronic short-

temper, in a highly empathic mother, or in a self-absorbed teenage

parent. Behavioral similarity also appears from th e consolidation

of habitual forms of interacting. Individuals ar e likely to repeat a

behavior if the conditions for its prior elicitation recur (Cairns,1979). These an d other likely sources of similarity ar e listed in the

to p half of Table 2.

Sources of Child-Rearing Differences

In the midst of these sources of similarity, there are also sources

an d pressures to modify child-rearing beliefs an d behavior. Given

that th e nature of parenting is multiply determined an d dynamic

(e.g., Belsky, 1984; Pettit & Bates, 1984), the similarity can be

undermined by a change in on e or more determinants. Parents m u s t

modify their behavior in important ways to respond to changing

child behavior and characteristics (e.g., Maccoby, 1984).

Development in children has long been appreciated as a catalyst

for transformations in parenting behavior (Baldwin, 1946). Fo r

instance, th e onset of infan t locomotion is accompanied by a

dramatic increase in parental expectations of compliance and the

use of angry prohibitions but also new expressions of warmth, such

as verbal affect ion (Campos, Kermonian, & Zumbahlen, 1992).

Children who were early walkers showed more conflict as well as

positive exchanges with their parents than later walkers (Bir in gen ,

Emde, Campos, & Appelbaum, 1995). Not surprisingly, new ca-

pabilities in the child can be associated with changes in parental

satisfaction. Parents report less child-rearing enjoyment with their

more mobile 18-month-old children than they did when their




Table 2

Influences That M ay Promote Child-Rearing Similarities or Differences

Parental variable s Child characte ristics Context

Experience in family of origin

Personali tyChild-rearing beliefs/at t i tudesHabits, routines

Friends, social supportFormal education

Occupat ion

Influences promoting similarities

Gender Cul ture

Temperament SESBir th order Religion

Attractiveness NeighborhoodBiological/adopted

Handicap

A g in g

Change in marital status/satisfactionShifts in stressors

Different immediate goals

Changes a t workMoodN e w child-rearing information

Influences promoting differences

Growth/age

BehaviorMood

Time of year, day

Day of weekPresence of othersCompeting demands

Nature of specific context

Note. SES = Socioeconomic status.

infan t s were 12 months old (Fagot & Kavan agh, 1993). The focus

of parental concerns may also change with age. Mothers of tod-

dlers are primarily conce rned with their safety, but those conce rns

soon shift to moral and conventional issues (Gralinski & Kopp,

1993; Smetana, 1997). As children attain puberty, adolescents and

their parents exhibi t an increased amou nt of confl ict and decreased

warmth compared with before or after puberty (Paikoff & B rooks-

G u n n , 1991; Steinberg, 1981).

Differences in child rearing are not only instigated by a child's

development; the need to modify parenting behavior can come

from many sources. The family systems perspective (e.g.,

Min u chin , 1985) reminds us that parent-child dyadic interactionsdo not occur in a v a c u u m but can be influenced by the presence of

other individu als. Support for this has been borne ou t with the

research on second-order effects (Bronfenbrenner , 1979) and tri-

adic family interactions. For example, fathers became more de-

man d in g of their sons when observed with their wives compared

with father-son dyadic interactions (Buhrmester , Camparo, Chris-

tensen, Gonzalez, & Hinshaw, 1992). Par t of the impetus for

change in the family context may come from competing goals an d

th e motivation to balance th e needs of different individuals (Dix,

1992). In the case of marital violence, battered women report tha t

they often modify their child-rearing behavior to avoid inci ting th e

wrath of their abusive par tner (Holden & Ritchie, 1991).

Every family uni t experiences changes over time, such as the

arrival of another child, a change in the quali ty of the marital

relationship or employment, heal th problems, divorce, or remar-

r iage. Man y of these changes in the family structure or functioning

have been shown to impact th e quali ty of parenting (e.g., Dunn &

Kendrick, 1980; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1995; Taylor &

Kogan, 1973). The effects of marital conflict and divorce on

child-rearing practices have been frequently investigated. For ex-

ample, the two best documented findings are that parents in mar-

itally turbulent homes are l ikely to express negative emotionali ty

to their children and experience problems in child management

(Cu mmin gs & Davies, 1994).

Change in the family is often associated with increases in stress.

Stress has also been shown to be a potent agent for changes in

child-rearing practices, whether it be transient or chronic (Mash &

Johnson, 1990; Webster-Stratton, 1990). In the case of unemploy-

ment, economic need commonly results in stress and the onset of

negative parenting (Conger et al., 1992; McLoyd, 1990). Similarly,

th e stress associated with l iving w ith a violent husband appears to

resul t in increased maternal aggression directed toward the child

(Holden, Stein, Harris, Ritchie, & Jouriles, 1998).

Other sources of variation in child-rearing behavior include such

m u n d a n e determinants as the time of year an d day. Crouter an d

McHale (1993) found differences in parenting during the summer

an d the winter months, at least for those parents whose work

schedule chan ged. Parent behavior may also vary across the course

of a day. It is not difficult to predict that most parents would sa y

the quali ty of their interactions with their rested children is better

during th e mor nings than in the ear ly evening, a time co lloquial ly

referred to in some families as "hell hour." In fact, there is some

evidence that parents are mo re l ikely to spank their children in the

evening than other times of the day (Clifford, 1959; Holden,

Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995). Althou gh there are competing expla-

nations for this observation (e.g., decrease in parental patience vs.

increase in base rate of child misbehaviors), the time of day is

nonetheless correlated with differing rates of child-rearing

behavior.A n u m b e r of other characteristics ca n also account for differ-

ences in parenting. As parents age, their child-rearing practices

ma y be transformed because of one or more of a variety of

variables. Fatigue or physical ai lments, new information learned,

competing demands, or previous experience with children are a

few of the sources of change tha t have been sugges ted in the

literature (Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Holden, 1988; Ragozin, Basham,

Crnic, Greenberg, & Robinson, 1982; Zussman, 1980). Transient

variables such as parental mood, shifting goals, or the immediate

context have also been shown to impact parenting (Dix, 1991; Dix




& Reinhold, 1991; Kuczynski , 1984; Schaffer & Liddell, 1984;

Zussman, 1980).

The variability associated with parental behavior has been best

d ocu men ted in s tudies investigating parental disciplinary practices.

In a p ion ee r in g s tu d y , Gru s ec an d K u czyn s k i (1980) showed that

mothers ' disciplinary responses were far more dependent on the

nature of the transgression rather than a belief about how to

discipline a child. That work has since been extended in severaldifferent directions (e.g., Gru s ec & Goodnow, 1994; Smetana,

1989; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986; Zahn-Waxler & Chapman ,

1982). These and other potential sources of child-rearing variabil-

ity ar e listed in the lower half of Table 2.

The likelihood that parent-child relationships can be character-

ized by considerable difference should not be surpris ing; there is

ample evidence that adult in timate rela tionships undergo s ignifi-

can t changes over rela tively short periods of t ime, such as during

hon eymoon s or after the birth of a child (B elsky & Rovine , 1990;

Cowan & Cowan, 1992). Certain close observers of parental

behavior ar e keenly aware of variability in child-rearing practices:

Children are quick to protes t that parents act more favorably

toward their s iblings than to them (e.g., Dan ie ls , Du n n , Fu rs ten -

berg, & Plomin, 1985).

Summary

The above examples of sources of child-rearing similarities and

differences illus tra te the competing evidence for both continuity

an d change in parenting. How the determinants interrelate—and

impact child-rearing similarity—is likely to be abstruse. Certain

determinants may compete between each other (e .g. , current be-

liefs vs. experience in family of origin), others may be additive

(e.g., difficult temperament and poverty), and s till others may

interact (e.g., personality and stress). Some variables mediate

child-rearing behavior and its stability (e.g., attributions); others

serve as moderators (e.g., poverty). However the variables relate,they represent a mu lt i tu d e of potential influences that contribute to

both similarities and differences across the three child-rearing

domains of consideration.

Through this discussion of in f lu en ces on paren t in g , it becomes

apparent that which variables or influences are held constant and

which variables are manipulated will impact the outcome. It is

likely that an investigator could design a s t u d y to maximize either

child-rearing similarities or differences. To some degree, we sus-

pect that this has occurred in the li terature. Longitudinal s tudies of

parent-child relations are in ten d ed to reveal stability, in contras t to

cross-situational s tudies that are more likely to emphasize the

situational specificity of child rearing. Research examining par-

enting across children falls somewhere in the middle, whereby

each child's temperament and behavior are the variables allowed

to f lu c tu a te .

Questions Addressed in the Meta-Analysis

Theoretical orientations and empirical reports have presented

credible reasons concerning why parenting behavior might be

characterized by either similarity or difference. This meta-analysis

is designed to systematically evaluate the available evidence. On

the basis of the exis ting li terature, we generated several hypothe-

ses. For several reasons, we expected the greates t amount of

similarity to be f o u n d in the across-time s tudies ra ther than th e

across-children or across-situations s tudies. Foremost, given that

the same dyadic rela tionships were assessed, those rela tionships

are based on a common his tory of in teractions and that longitudi-

nal s tudies were in tended to maximize the likelihood of finding

s tability, we expected to f ind th e mos t evid en ce of con t in u i t y in

tha t domain. Another reason why we expected the most s imilarity

across time was that su ch s tu d ies were u n l ik e ly to con t ras t theparen t in g of an i n fan t with th e paren t in g of an adolescent; ra ther,

it was expected that most s tudies would utilize rela tively short

longitudinal t ime frames by making comparisons across months

rather than across years .

G iv en the potential power of proximate contextual influences on

both the child 's and the parent 's behavior, we expected the across-

situations s tudies would show the leas t amount of parenting s im-

ilarity for several reasons. Firs t , we recognized that parental be-

havior can be highly s ituation specific , as much of the child-

rearing literature reviewed above has shown. Second, in line with

theoris ts such as Mischel (1984), we expected the person-situation

in te rac t ion wou ld res u l t in differences across contexts . In addition,

we reasoned that s tudies examining behavior across s ituations

w o u l d be d es ign ed to max imize the ways in which the con tex t

elicited different behavior. We anticipated that s tudies comparing

parenting across children to fall in be tween the o the r two d omain s

in terms of the e x t e n t of similarities or d if fe ren ces fou n d .

Several specific variables were hy pothesized to modify the level

of similarity for the across-time domain. We expected s tudies

containing longer samples of child-rearing behavior ( thereby cap-

t u r ing more representative samples of behavior) to show more

similarity than s tudies with briefer observations. Also, s tudies with

shorter t ime in tervals between assessments were predicted to show

more s imilarity, as has been fou n d with children 's in te lligence tes t

scores (e .g. , McCall, Appelbau m, & Hogarty, 1973). We reasoned

tha t investigations across t ime were more likely to use global and

molar-type variables, which in turn should show greater in terindi-v idual s tability than behavioral variables commonly assessed in

s tudies across children or across s ituations. Similarly, long itudin al

s tudies also are likely to rely on child-rearing at t i tudes, which are

likely to be more s table than child-rearing behavior (Holden,

1995). Finally, we anticipated t ha t similarity would be more ap-

parent in s tudies that began with older children, where parent-

child behavioral re la tionships would be more es tablished and

would u n d ergo fewer dramatic ontogenetic changes t han in s tu d ies

commen c in g in i n fan cy .

Method

Identification of the StudiesThree strategies were used to identify potential studies for i n c lu s io n . Th e

primary search method involved conducting a computer search of the

Psychological Abstracts database (PsyclNFO, 1888-1997). In addition, to

identify unpublished conference presentations, a computer search of the

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC, 1901-1997) database

was also conducted. Both searches involved the use of the descriptors

parents) and child-rearing, cross-referenced with stability, instability,

consistency, variation, longitudinal, context, situation, an d siblings. Sec-

ond, a manual search was conducted of art icles published in Child Devel-

opment an d Developmental Psychology from the years 1980 th rough 1997.

The ancest ry method was a lso use d, whereby references l is t ed in review



230 HOLDEN AN D MILLER

Table 3

Characteristics of the Studies in the Three C hild-Rearing Domains

Child-rearing domain

Characteristic Across time Across children Across situ a tio n s

Number of s tudies foun d

Number of studies usedAssessment method

Quest ionnaireInterviewObservationMult imethod/o ther

Time period when study appeared1960-1972

1973-19821983-1997

Age of child0-12 mo nt h s13-35 months3-5 years6-10 years1 1 years or older

Sample size (mother-child dyads)MRange

78

56

93

377

4

844

Assessment

First Final

30 1017 232 104 23 11

7520-359

23

13

0193

11

11

Child

First Second

3 33 32 0

2 23 5

4112-120

31

20

00

200

15

14

46910

13931-516

articles (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Martin, 1975; Rollins & Thomas, 1979)

or empirical studies provided a source for other articles. Those searches le d

to a total of 132 studies that were examined for possible inclusion.

To be included in the data set, th e study had to meet five criteria. First,

th e s tudy had to include a direct assessment of parents, rather than thechildren's perception of their parents' child-rearing behaviors or attitudes.

The assessment me thod could involve the use of questionn aires, inter-

views, observations, or some combination. Second, because we wanted to

investigate th e similarity of no rmal parental behavior, research in to clinical

samples of parents or children (e.g., depressed parents, noncompliant

children), family transitions (e.g., modifications in family composition

such as divorce, change in parents' work status, or adjus tments to na tura l

disasters or trau ma), or studies invo lving parents of disabled children were

omitted.

Although these criteria reduced the sample size, it was done in o rder that

the results be generalizable to normal child-rearing practices. Fo r example,

it has been shown that certain clinical populations of mothers (e.g., de-

pressed, schizophrenic) not only exhibit different rearing practices than

comparison mothers (Goodman & B ru m l ey , 1990; Kochanska, Kuczynski,

& Maguire , 1989), but they show diminished ability to adapt and modulatetheir behavior (Dix, 1992). Inclusion of such groups could have inflated

measures of the similarity of child rearing. However, wherever possible,data from comparison groups used in those clinical studies were included

(e.g., Kochanska, 1990; McHale & Pawletko, 1992).

Th e third criterion fo r inclus ion wa s tha t th e s tudy needed to contain

sufficient statistical information (correlations, F or t values, means, and

standard devia t ions , or at a min imu m, some in formation regarding s ignif-

icance) to allow the use of meta-analytic techniques . Fourth, we limited our

focus to mothers ' child rearing becau se of an insufficient number of studies

focusing on fathers. (We did identify a total of 21 studies that sampled

fathers; all but four also included mothers.) Finally, because we wanted to

examine actual child-rearing behaviors or beliefs, studies that focused on

parental behavioral intentions were excluded. Most of these studies used

vignettes asking parents to predict how they think they would behave in

response to a particular scenario.

A total of 87empirical studies met those criteria. The investigations fell

into three categories: (a) 56 studies examined parental behavior or attitudesover time; (b) 13 studies investigated parental behavior across different

children within a family; and (c) 20 studies assessed parental behavior

across situations.1

Those studies included 66 published articles (69% from

Child Development or Developmental Psychology), nine conference pre-

sentations, six chapters, three monographs, tw o dissertations, and onemanual.

A summary of the characteristics of the studies is found in Table 3.

Sixty-three percent of the studies contributed to the across-time domain,

15% to the across-children domain, and 22% to the across-situations

domain. Most (84%) of the studies that used a single assessment method

relied on systematic observations, followed by questionnaires (11%), an d

interviews (5%). Although th e data se t spans almost 35 years, more than

three fourths of the studies (78%) appeared in the past 15 years. With

regard to the age of the children, infants or toddlers were th e focus in 71%

of the studies; only 18% of the studies include d children older than age 10.A final characteristic of the studies that varied across child-rearing domain

was the sample size. The mean number of mother-child dyads in the

across-time studies was 75. The across-children studies had the largest

number of mothers per study (n = 139), whereas the across-situations

studies had, on average, th e fewest number of mother-chi ld dyads(n = 41).

Another characteristic of the three sets of studies was the presence of

confounds. Studies in each of the three domains ha d confounds. Of the 56

1Tw o studies contained data for two domains (Conger & Conger, 1994;

Dunn & Plomin, 1986).




across- t ime s tudies , n ine in t roduced a confound by changing the se t t ing

(k = 6) or swi tch ing the assessmen t m ethod f rom observat ion to se l f -repor t

(k = 3). All of the across-children studies had one of two types of

l imi ta tions: The observat ions inevi tably confoun d e i ther the age of a ch i ld

or the age of the paren t . Invest iga t ions mu st either have had paren t s in t erac t

wi th thei r own chi ldren , who were a t differen t ages, or the researchers mu st

have waited u n t i l the younger ch i ld reached the same age tha t the o lder

chi ld was before conduct ing the second parent-child observat ion . Out of

the thirteen across-children s tudies inc luded in the meta-analysis , seven

co n f o u n d e d age of ch i ld, and s ix confounded t ime (a long wi th the age of

the paren t ) . Another confou nd wi th the da ta concerns the across-situa t ions

s tudies . The design of the s tudies involved changes in loca t ion , t asks, or

bo th . Three of these s tudies compared paren ta l behavior in the home wi th

behavior in the laboratory or another location (e.g., park). The other 17

studies occurred only in one set t ing (10 in the laboratory and 7 in the

home). Each of these single-set t ing studies created two or three differen t

si tua t ions by modify ing ac t iv i ti es (k = 13), in t roducin g o ther individuals

in to th e in terac t ions (k = 2) , swi tch ing rooms (k = 1), or modify ing

act iv i t i es and in t roducing ano ther individual (k = 1).

Selection of Child-Rearing Variables

Each s tudy measured an average of 6.1 child-rearing variables, result ing

in a total of 533 variables of interest . Two coders then independently

grouped those variables into child-rearing const ruc t s . Considerable a t t en-

t ion wa s devoted to determining th e appropriate construct categories.

Col lapsing variables into too few categories might have obscured any

systemat ic pa t t erns. Al terna t ively , i f too many categories were crea ted,

there might no t have been enough data for analyses. The coders arrived

at 11 independen t ch i ld-rear ing const ruc t s , ranging f rom caregive to ver-

balization. Four of the con st ruc t s ref lec ted different aspects of the qual i ty

of in terac t ions. Caregive included observational variables that reflected

daily custodial act iv i t ies wi th youn g ch i ldren , su ch as f eeding , ho lding , and

sooth ing . Behavioral or att i tudinal measures that reflected support, praise,

help , rewards, or use of posi t ive re inforcement were coded in to the con-

struct encouragement. Interaction was a behavioral construct that indicated

the degree of posi t ive involvement between mother and ch i ld, inc luding

engagement , p lay , and proximi ty . .Behaviors tha t involved demonst ra t ing

to the chi ld, t eaching , or providing some type of cognit ive or social

s t imula t ion were coded as stimulation. Maternal vocal iza t ions directed to

th e chi ld tha t may have been qual i f i ed as rate of speech, syntactic com-

plexity, or richness of vocabulary were classified as verbalization. A

const ruc t tha t cap tured the qual i ty of in t erac tion was responsiveness. Th e

behavioral var iables subsumed by th is const ruc t inc luded assessments of

sensi t iv ity or respon sivi ty . At t i tudinal or observat ional assessments of

child management or disciplinary practices or orientations that may have

appeared as restrictiveness, power assertion, or punishment were co l lapsed

in to the const ruc t control. Another behavioral const ruc t was monitor,

which consisted of paren ta l supervision (watchin g) or main ta in ing an

awareness of the ch i ld 's ac t iv i t i es . Two af fec t -based const ruc t s were in-

c luded. Negative a f f e c t consis t ed of the observed or self-reported at t i tudes

of host i l i ty , re jec t ion , cr i t ic i sm, or negat ive emot ional i ty . Positive a f f e c tencompassed behavioral or a t t i t udinal measures of maternal p leasure or

e n j o y m e n t with th e child, operationalized as laugh, smi le , warmth, an d

affect ion. Final ly , the const ruc t noninvolvement inc luded those behaviors

that reflected a lack of interest or involve me nt with the child, such as

i g n o ri n g o r n o n e n g a g e m e n t .

To assess the reliabili ty of the coding of the variables, two coders

independe n t ly ca tegorized the variables in to the 11 const ruc t s . They agreed

on ca tegory p lacement in 82% of the cases. Al l discrepancies were dis-

cussed and resolved by the coders. A total of 35 of the 533 variables (6.6%)

could no t be c lassi fied in to one of the const ruc t s and thus were no t inc luded

in th e analyses (e.g., achievement pressure , chores , f ee l ings of competence,

i n d e p e n d e n c e , an d over-protection or foster ing dependency) .

In severa l ins tances, two or more var iables used in a s tudy were co l-

lapsed and c lassi fied in to the same con st ruc t . For example, in a s tu dy by

Clarke-Stewart (1973), appropriateness and responsiveness were both in-

c luded under the const ruc t responsiveness. In such cases, the effect sizes

from the two (or more) var iables were averaged to form one measure per

s tudy as recommended by Rosen thal (1991) to m a i n t a i n i n d e p e n d e n t

samples in the meta-analysis .

Tables 4, 5, and 6 l is t the s tu dies analyzed in each of the three domain s

an d provide a summary of the key characterist ics of the studies, including

the sample size, presence of moderator variables, and the particular con-

s tructs examined.

The Meta-Analytic Method Used

Meta-analyses typ ical ly examine th e effects of an independen t var iable

on a dependen t var iable . In the case of parent-child relat ionships, this

t echnique has been used to address such quest ions as whether paren t s

differentially socialize their sons and daughters (Lytton & Romney, 1991),

whether ch i ldren 's wel l being i s adversely affected by being raised in

divorced, single-parent families compared with two-paren t famil ies

(Amato & Keith, 1991), and whether parental caregiving is related to child

external izing behavior (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). Usual ly , the indepen-

dent variable is manipulated at two or more levels, and the relat ion betweenthe two variables i s then expressed as an effect size (ei ther with an r or d).

The cen t ra l analyses in th is ar t ic le , however , do no t examine the effect

of an independen t var iable on a dependen t var iable . Rather , we examine

whether paren t s are re la t ively s imi lar over t ime, differen t chi ldren , or

con texts . Thus, a par t icu lar var iable was assessed a t two poin t s in t ime,

with two ch i ldren , or in two or more s i tua t ions. Because the i ssue of the

degree o f similari ty is d e t e r m i n e d from correlational analyses, th e effect

size (ES) est imates were based on Pearson product-moment correla t ions

(e.g., Rose nthal, 1984). For studie s examin ing two (or more) variables

classified in to the same const ruc t , the ES was the average correla t ion . For

the com puta t ion of the average correla t ion , Fischer's r-to-z transformation

was use d. I f the resu l t s indica ted on ly tha t the correla t ion was non sign i f -

ican t , th e variable wa s given an effect size of 0.

A n um ber of s tudies , ra ther than assessing degree of similari ty, exam-

ined the i ssue of whether child rearing differed sign ifican tly in one of thedomains. A n a l y s e s from these s tudies were most of ten /-tests or A N OV A s

an d were t ransla t ed in to effect sizes with d (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Effect

sizes were a lso computed in s tudies tha t provided means an d standard

devia t ions bu t did no t report any stat ist ical test . Studies reporting only

sign i ficance l evels were a lso inc luded in the an alyses. For un speci f ied

s ignif icant resu l t s , p value s along wi th sample s izes were used to determine

effect sizes (Johnson, 1993). As wi th th e correla tional da ta , non sign i f ican t

results were assigned an effec t size of 0. Across both type s of data, the o n ly

information provided for 29 (5.4%) of the 498 variables wa s tha t th e

analyses were nonsign i f ican t .2

Correla t ional da ta as wel l as da ta concern ing the di f ference in mean

levels of scores both yield information about similari ty and change. How-

ever, for convenience, correlations are referred to as an index of similari ty,

whereas tests of mean levels of scores are ascribed to as an index of

difference or c h a n g e . B e c a u se th e effect sizes obta ined from t or F valuesdeno t ing differences across t ime, ch i ldren , or s i tua t ions could no t be

combined with the correlations expressing similari t ies, separate a n a l y s e s

were conducted for s imi lari ty and di f ferenc e t es t s. I t should be poin ted ou t

that the similari ty and difference tests are not conceptually opposite. For

example, th e f r e q u e n c y of h u g g i n g or kissing children will l ikely show a

2The meta-analyses were recomputed wi thou t these non sign i f ican t var i-

ables. Removing those variables resulted, for the most part , in minimal

changes in the overa l l effect sizes. This set of meta-analyses is available

from either author.

1sK

|

•gg

12

rC

1^J- ^

<L > -

3 "§« SH^

T3

£3

U

5

^

toG

a

G

>-. o3

c

a.

G

P

co

°i 5E ; g ? '

0

it_

'3 E6

" 8•£

g

A

men

^

3

cn

c/f

1 s> g"3 t/i> «s s1 1r-v3

SA

c/ a ^

.IS|s

en crt £T*rt

S SQ g|§ ss'a 'a "8.o o -a r:Q, CX u/ T

1

4J O 3

a t & u

•a-o -a

33 3O O O

CA CA CA

G C GDD D

G ™ -S

P

S~ oc

G C C

« G G

s s s

ill!

cW

§ § §•-P 'Z3 v, '&

cd cd u cd

§ 8<^ SX JS ^ ^3

o o o

^5 p

c

o.'o c

2 d> ( °

o '2 a,ulS

c8 oi —

js js a^.tS .t!CM .<*

1s||>g

03 09 03

M ,Ogg >?g - „.

I s § 'H lii"!'f g g ^ s l — ^ s ^ s>gg |§ 1S ISQ

52- 1oo" 5co"^

*o e ft *tt m Q > E 5 o ' 3 £ - S - § *« "^^ • - ^ '— OC

^ S *\u

'-C t/5 G /-^ Q ^Z , "3 ° W ) *^^ td ^ . 2 Q 2 t/J

1|Qg° 1iJl S If111

'~

N

§ G Pi ^ -T^ ^ • •- '•" 'i t '" ^ Q *3 1) t> C O D . .. cdQ Q, o ». Q . £3 '— • y ^" J2 v5 ^ ^ G ^ ^ '"" '* P '-" ^£ fl - ^ . C ^ i— Q 2 ^ .2 <S ^"^ '" C /5 .S . •• *tt • •• cfl , „ Q ^G

c / 5 " H £ 0 ^ *H -^ " Hu

« - w"w

Q" ^"^ ^ 5 5 " S" *^ r "^

IslI1 | |ll° i I s - f s s 1si g |>|s | i&1&^ '°B.^^ « i ||g ^ 1 is^ss'is

a l s S - s ^ |5a|l§§sl° -1l-igs" °-S §M"°1M"Is

fflsl i i ii Jiji1ilj||||J1ilUiif |» Ifllill

U U co O <3 U S Z (2 6 S U U UW W U U U

•a -oi|

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 § « 3 < 3O U C J U U U G O c n U «C"^ CJ 0 0 O

1 111 1 - 3 11 l a1^ , ^ ^ 111S "S D D "S 5 P H 3 "S D D D DE H D (2 D

V3 C A d d CA C A C A V ] X VI

t) f] t/ V JV J ,f JQ J2 J y JJ J2W 3 VJ J J

•£ H ' S ' S f i ' S f i t s • t s ' S e S ' S G G ' S c "S ScB O C C O C O O g g O C O O C O C O Oo S o o p o 5 p — 2 r t 2 P o p p o p o ppp B B S e e _ S - . E

CB

e aE E c c

C N O O O O - ^ f 1 I C M C M C M C M C ^ O O

.S c c£ — e P § ia 2 S

.S .S .S .S .S o . p '3 'I -c

•- < n "e - S oE ES E £

f r^ r ^ ' 3 P E ^ "^c l ^ 'p £ ^ ?

9 l ^ s - i s S P § l § s s ^ p 1 § ^

(A SA WJ W5 CA J2J S w c « c « 2 ^ G O

M« £ J 3 J 3 JH C A S E 2

•S S' S' S£- | p| S5 S § S S ^ S 6 g. •§P O P P p S O S ( t ) P ^ . p P O O H O P ôoS

!slll3Saa

f ll||2 sa!a! S ^

8 >G

^ ^>

§ 1 g g 1 § § § 1g1g g § § § § § gi g"*3 S T3 '-3 S "S "-3 '-3 ' C O S '.C '& '5 'i* *5 'S " O '£3w = < d « j r « c a e f l e d ^ S c o e d c d c d c d W ed e d ' ^ J e d> . ; ; >>.55 > r * r * > « d . s > > > • > > > > > c o >I-H j _ i i _ U > 4 - t U U U i_ 3 *j i_ U U U i U i U i U t- qj E -4i c A { U 4 i c n 4 J U U O f c J C A Q J U < 1 > U D ( U ( U 4 )31 )E H . 3 . 3 § , 3 ^^ ^ ' « g j ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J ^ o1ô a o o cx o o o o o1

o o o oo o o o o

j* g a o o c a j . v o p o x ~ Jj! j« - orôm ^ 3

"

« 5? 00 '-.-O JJ

u ^ g o S ^ -1

C 51 c ^ e S t . "

|§111. ^11r? 1© I^& §

I i l ?|2| If 1 i ^ 1 I?i|l I S|!f2 "111?* ^ « 1 ^ E*Io1 1||

i?l |lil(2ll" " 2 1 JI2

c« * 1^1^ p - s "IS

^ ^ u G c " ^ - r t " ^ " ** 7j -S C C C S3 G o G Q\ gcn^'

03 03 03 U UU G U U Q Q Q Q (3 (3 l£ 6 ffi 35

1

cd

1

Cousmt

c°!n.£3

.S

g

O

<D

0

'i|k

^ —

sfl C/5 Qu -~-

< 5 «—• S Sis IIa |na &g

« ,

g K|

.2 gg

ig i si|£iS e ^ >^0&§^ o bo

1 S-l

S-

8> gg

8 CMCa o uo

p a uzu

•a -aV 0}

3 3

II

"§ -SDD

co eo. "O

"B -S *•§

•— en oo <!

C t~

« ' g t

•s §js .g .3 •§ >,C GCo. roO O O I

s e E s,ii— OO — <C

«c - a c e.2 c .2 -2^ S a s ?5e - S e ttl> co qj U05 41 co coJD 3 X) 43

o cx o o

vo r-- CM ONTf in rooo



Q

On

p

vae

moSD

;smuaoD

&§

g§ g

111§| §uSu

•o

0oB

- a S P

§-ll> > £.0 E

o CM <n

c

is•g < =IOVO

«§ « "f

^ s s^&en \O ro

Inevew

Ovao

Ovao

oo r-OO C O ^*<N

Xs

oo

in" O --rON OOÔ\ ON a

= J 13 Q«Mo"" O =<)

s >-. c

CO

CJ

<£ s a> O• g4_< CL

1Jg

Q '» S

g f

§111o fa o ..g ca u,->

IK u E Q,

« '§ S " o•a S1 S S

1c

§8.» ,- U

D "

a g g ^ a1 l i'||§ § °§ 1 "aU U U U

3 j.

^11J 3 "23 MS M 3cj 5 o 5 uI'S H "g Stc . <T3 ti c9 OÎD -rt- 54 COgT)P ^ - S > > — c c oSJS^ j ^ o o s ; - -

•-^ (N --^ r-

*1C! C CS '3GO C O 2 O•n o -a S -s« *i3 c a g «(c S £ '+ 3 £O 34) «Daa ET-

M cs

*&

3

_|

O Na\

2 J-SC- **C-ONp

jf£5ON

1g3S£

11«&

8 8sI1

^ x s2

xQ

^cÔD o c:

r is - s•S S 21 1 1 — " •--

CS0^

—_„&Q

III

I•— C3 3

U OOV)^g gQ

glg?11ll'1

U U U

T) -a

3 3

H 2

C 3 cd C

D S ^

• sm u g

r— oo cs

^^ M J3C C 00

•S 1-cc 2 2 w ci§ ôB >, oo £

cJ r- —

4 0

1 § 1> S .0

J-§ «5 UCO tA•-' 3 ^

o a o

( CM O

*S" 5£OO Ho\ J3

C 33

g -*)S bb

aJ

> i *°

g 38^

1 1^1

+ - . . . . ^

co ^r^ 2 ^ " S - ^ ^ - E_ g Q -3 & Q S c j S u t i t S5 c "c o ^ 2

s- > < £ - .

•| SM| ^ 2^g'|« g

S "* — ? - • - - t - * n'-3c C a>'-C *-• S ? s c co 4) >c 'S? t3

" « S,Q

c --S SSM

^^ g 'w | ^ M « C ^ «

S°2 § g g1

- s t s l -Sgs5£ .|g||gg_ Isal-âgK

1

is .2 w Q > co o G ^ — • •• > is • * • • S o S c & = '5 e a 5 2 , c ' g e g S S

O U O ^ i O D O co ct f O o ±oz u £u a: u u u u u 5

1 SO &0 00 DO

I - S .S .3 &•

Cg M Mg uM M « M ^

D u H - s a c u D - ^ - a - a H a c u

« »

cH M"S«

fiC "S en g "S

S £ § g ^ E £ g § 2§o o o - - ^ ^ ^ V O - H ^ > % C | ) r y c— • C M CM r-CN CO (N OO ON — ON OO

+

t_ c; a c^ ' s ^ -^ "s "iTo -S - ^ m -§ -5 -5 ^^ orovo c ro m — c c c C c —

i/> ^ (/) t« c/i w - t»

OS § §^0o § 0 § § §|1E_ > > E ^ ^ E E E >, x E > > Ev o - r o v o - v o c o ^ - c o o l - ^

#

2 o = 3 bb

.S |'1 .1.2 1 > 'a |u |u |

lg o S f o o 1 ' f e f ' f cSC C 'O C C C e '> '.3 C a > C a ) CflJW t/3 UU 4> S d ^ W ± S l > ^ i 4 >W 3 W 5 U W l c c in ? qj U « C ( « C v iX> 3 .C_O 4^ i - 3 ,o.a.c

oo a oo o a £ a o o o

r— i in CM oo ON " in co in o\ •— o

0 3~

" " "c "O

T~ M"O ON *•" " ^^ r «

o M C o o f l i « = o g «

J g - s? ^^ | 2& £S . 2 |

l"i || « 1 ||2 « 5|S^ ^ jr ^ u § B S - • d ' ^ ^ ^ s

s f > ; = 3 B| •§ sS

£ J 3 ym

^"-uMJ2 S C O O Q S <% i >-W S ^ 'C •S

IHi 11 illjs i 1 !PIa- ou 0.0. o- a, £ ci oo on on

T

e4

(cn

1SCS

6

Og

coU

<4-.G

o -^

D. "*

-S

s -EH

c:,o

> OO

s Jo

< uM>CO

« > CT

6

• gH5c

A

me

^

•o2

c

'S§

g

5?

1g 55 -

.S ^• • .25? M

"aTa

O

•oH

3OS1

•soE

^

.S

o04

Crtjr

1S

VI

co

O

v

0

^

= a

Sgma

N

ma

C

e

Ce(1

g

m @C3to

N

v

S

mua

a «a S

1^.fi

r^ Su ; o

-H 00

c

l/-^

^f <N

"S H

b w

11> o

T B

co

Inevew

O

v

2 £CS

CS S

Sa

n& K

a

g

1

T

misL

Mo

& B

n

e

(1

5?

2ta

05

'

S

Inea

c

1

1n0

r-

c ^

iV)

X

1s

c:o

O

v

3

c

T

misL

Mo

& B

n

e

(1

S

1CD>

IOilen

S .

J 2

1

-So

cs

a1o

»

C

S

a0

O

v

2

4en

1

1u2u

1

gtj

1>

1Q

CJ

<4-j

rt

cdbfl

1

&0)

c'E

S

IIv-i

c:0

O

v

mvO

Ed

(1

V

nc

A

e

&

G

h

um 1

«

J

5

£5

SS u

^ s1/5 >

1 1

"S

3o

! sS

s 1m

E

cs ^*

.s'g o .. co • • H B2 P

*

1 1

! !

c c0 0

•ajo

> >J a i

J0 0

0Scs

G ^

S M

fc

<« 1yca ^ > c .

> H

csfllg

HI I

H

1H

I I4

[—

k

w

1I I

f _

^

I.rt

O

I IM

rta

11

8

1

'•3V

.c"Ouen

I I

QCrt

•ilcea

1'en

u

c

sI I

00

reliable decrease across time, but parents could maintain their relative

position on the construct of positive affect.

The meta-analyses were conducted at two levels, as recommended by

Light and Pillemer (1984). The most general approach involved analyses at

th e study level. At that level, all constructs assessed in a particu lar stu dy,

irrespective of their content, were averaged to obtain one estimate (or

ent ry) per s tudy.3 The study-level analyses involved a total of six meta-

analytic tests: similarity and difference tests across time, across children,

and across situations. The purpose of this level of analysis was to discover

the extent of similarity independent of the particular type of parental

behavior; i t provides a conservative estimate of similarity of child rearing

(Rosenthal , 1991).4

The primary analyses at the study level were computed with the sof tware

package DSTAT (Johnson, 1993), a program that uses the procedures and

formulas developed by Hedges and Olkin (1985). Composite mean effect

sizes were computed by averaging the effect sizes with each effect size

weighted by variance estimates. Using this technique, the greatest weight

is given to the most rel iably est imated studies an d thus takes in to accoun t

sample-size variation. The reported results include composite mean effect

sizes, 95% confidence interval limits (CI), and homogeneity estimates.

To interpret composite effect sizes, we followed Cohen's (1988) recom-

mendat ions. A small effect size has an r of at least .10 or a d va l u e of a

minimum of .20. An effect size is considered medium with an r of .24 or

bet ter and a d of at least .50. A large effect size would have a m i n i m u m r

of .37 or a d of .80 or greater.

The homogeneity estimates (Q h) tested the extent to which results across

studies differed. The statistic, which follows a chi-square distribution,

compares the actual variat ion in outcomes to what would be expected

simply because of sampling error (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Large Qb values

indicate signif icant heterogen ei ty. Thus, i f the Qb statistic is significant,

heterogeneous rather than homogeneous resul t s are present and tests of

moderator variables are warranted to reveal those factors contributing to

the variance among the studies.

The second type of analyses consisted of computat ions at the individual

const ruct level . At this level, each stu dy could only provide one datum per

construct; within one study, two or more variables that fell unde r the same

construct were averaged. The DSTAT (Johnson, 1993) program was again

used to determine effect sizes for the individual const ructs within each

s tudy as well as to compute the co mposite effect sizes. I f there we re enoug h

data, a total of six (similarity and difference tests for the time, children, and

situations domains) composite effect sizes was calculated on each con-

st ruct , al though the mean number of t ests per const ruct was 4.8

(SD = 1.47). At the individual construct level, resu lts inclu de composite

effect sizes, 95% confidence interval limits, and homogeneity estimates.

Once effect sizes were determined, follow-up analyses were conducted

to assess whether th e across-time, across-children, and across-situations

results were quantitatively different at the study an d individual-construct

levels. These linear contrasts of the average effect sizes were computed

following th e method recommended by Hedges an d Olkin (1985) and are

comparable to contrasts used in ANOVAs. A test statistic was computed

for each contrast using the two effect sizes, estimates of the variance, an d

th e pooled variance. Th e standardized contrast value obtained wa s t h en

3Twenty-six studies reported both correlations and difference tests, so

each study contributed one measure for each type of analysis.4

A second type of an alysis was conducted in which the const ructs were

n ot averaged. Rather, each study could contribute multiple pieces of data to

the meta-analyses if the study included multiple constructs. For example, if

three const ructs were reported in one study, each con st ruct was t reated as

an independent measure. As with th e study-level analyses, a total of six

meta-analytic tests were performed at this level. These analyses provided

resul ts that were very close to the study-level analyses. They are available

from ei ther author.

in

S

C

3*s;

Gi

f?

So^«

80

•S

1

S§

1/1 u>

3 "1a &

H = 0

•o

2 3nID

C

us

m

< ~ §

S ' e& §^ c

°lo b £ ;

Uoa(U C C£• u a>

tt3 *i "O"P qtj

a -0

°

00R]

12U

c

11qj U

I

55

>S >

1 'I• - ^^ ^

*-" O ti *->U .« C u

o

D

n

v

a

e

s

S

D

v

b

z

o

D

e

a

me

x

D

p

va

e

g£ 5«§ Cd § Cd

o o

tO LO

c d f l

C/l CO

V3 60

H H

c'§

• I 3o o

§ i

7 7<N c!j

o o o o

8 81 1o o

Q Q C O

c c'*3 '3

g ?2?C .^ C .2

6 O

o o

U

£Q OO

= y _ gc' u

i < §1- -

" OO •*-• OO- * O N S O N"r-* ffl •—

l^m^

so

v

D

iv

a

e

S

D

§ a .z

JSSH

c

o

MU

• < 3 -

M

UU

"o

f ^fO

co

IfO

Os

m

£o\

_J

0

U

u .1> ra

'i 10.-C

C enD < A

S CS*

5 "S

! f §i f ic 2 u

cd «

" a s

c

1 2

"

W

« Du c> ^ o

to

l io " *

oao

C Q C Q

coS '3'S?D cd "

1> S •S-

£ 0

00 OO

m iS

00

4> O N

jI

§ a S

Q S

1-0) C/3

(S

p

v

emua

o

i vb

z

o

(S)

o

S

n

va

e

; rep

v

S

gg

O

cd

3,

toedH

C

'§< r^

< ucoZ

t/}

= 1s

ooq

•a •S'|1

0 ~"

^

& >|I

>

g " SX • * o

^5* ^ S

|«ll.H gS'S

g §11O

_ § *^ H -

cflcqH

c

coz

to

iso

oa

•s 1?

i|0

m

c^*«

1

.a

S^

Q"

C

<L > -2

tlsi

11 11gg

> 1 «U

> ,_ cd

^ft

c'io

U

Z

c

o«

b

v

o

(d

O

V O

1

.s"o

ii

S x— x

o > " '00 C<d O

|fl

gg0

cd

^

cC

ffi

>-.

m

M

i Sg o 13o

< yJJ

11O

^_

m

r?

ICO

t

1

o QQ '|c

r^ W u '- C^T a N

O o " *e 3

1 1 gf

iv

a

e

S

p

iv

a

e

D

p

3

D

e

a

me

;n

v

a

e

D

oo oo c Q1> CJ O ^Z Z U

en &

< § ** aH ft, H

C C

E

e

O ^ V-)— m <s

—0

u c §> ^ o > ^

•^f Z < N

S

u "o , i•3.3| i8O O S O J3

J= -O <S f . < ->o a e 2 ">"u '" a, u

f S?f c§CQ CQ O

(U

'5 3 c

§ s s^l-s3 O 31? 9- o« -a « -a S 3

£ S1"2S8 = S 3=3 c

_Q W _£ •—

O O <

\O O V V O^H

r * ~ i in

_

^ •§,

i!„|f c- Stj 2 o el-

*M

- ^" «3

1^1~ fS S c s

Q

c

1§

u 3

60

cdH

*

eoz

Cfl

O•a• g

u00 J=rt o

P Q

b

v

o

(d

O

in

x >o

oo3

>So- oo

s0

50

I I

f

3S

1oc11

03

J /Ts>s

rtCca

0)o

1=3

•Se

•o

II I

QuT

>,13

1

1

U

cT30)

D

W5

1

3

3e

1g

i

g

|oSueCorbr

•o

3

C

u

sm

S

u

o

S

8 > J S

I1

c~.2

CB

U

1

«

^3 00

ll1 1

2:

-5 -

-§

»t 1

ll r .

c S s-•3 •£ B• «i ^— OS: .,c

- 8

gg ^(-. U

C

e

v

(D

c

o

(D

nea

o

(D

p

v

a

e

(D

smuao

Inea

o

(D

rep

v

(S

C

e

v

(D

nea

o

(D

p

v

(D

v

b

z

o

(D

1 1O li

& . o.

fe1"i "1t*_ -o tt-

lic« J^ en> 3 >^ 3 ^r'c S *cO W 5 O

1 ll0 0°

i

I I IC C

•^ ooTt m \o

V3 1/3

11-1

in (S °

c c co o o

•3 a a

1 II

1II

O (S OO•* -H Tf

B

sk

(1

B

sk

(1

C

n

R

n

c

P

o

Z

ow

Q §v$ c

^ -S•2 SS3 3

•3 S

1 '?!en , — i." Q

C

o

(S

D

rep

v

(S

DJ

N

v

a

e

(D

rep

v

(

> ^

S "S.

1 gbO

wi _G

I !s>

E E

iji

-0 fl

..g

•§c S

cs o -S

<N

.

>> J(M -H

11

^ £

6 o•n r —

& S

w

sk

(1

Co

g

&

L

ma

(1

Fe

(1

„

1 s. C/5

^Q wo ^-^ < uS r- i c

1 1 1

« s ss ^ S .

V

b

z

o

(S

C

o

(S

e

a

me

(S

neE

a

e

(S

smuao

(S

Inea

o

(D

sm

ao

(D

v

b

C

e

v

(D

p

v

a

e

(D

re

v

b

z

o

(D

3 •* Wca O C

^ ^ $> gO wi Q >> >

'3 * oT — — 3^ GO l-i Q <S C

111IP

s 1 •§ s*?*!U§ 5 » t « I |111 III |l

^ fll «fl r" (U g -i-S

g u s e ^ a s - S o - S£ a s s

1 s 1 1

1 '§

'§

Sm o în ts r4 oo

n r* c/ 3 e« M3 *3 bl î > j2 C S S«= 0 S 0\ S U

le

« ^ 1 *? 4 2 2

§ § § §•g - ja a a

e s e e8 8 8 8

8 S 8 S

O4 ^ 'iD ^

- i'i 13Ox , 1 _r f-^,3 5 f l — * toQ -f? ON

& ^P ii^l l^ t l l l l fi S s ^ ^ c ^ ^ t ga ra o aia a a s a j

R

p

v

(S

wi

BOC

'3)

e3U

>J

fi i-o o

O U M

i£

1

c

3

- eV•s

1ed

1

§

L

L

mb

Fa

o

e

a

gga c QI'S I3 N .2

S'a 1"• e 1^ u 2

» « 1o >

E

a

me

(D

nea

o

(D

n

n

vme

(D

smua

o

(

C

o

(S

D

p

v

a

e

(S

D

E

a

me

(D

smua

o

(D

-^ -ên fit

2 22 S "In•^ cd

•a . u §

1 1 f

cr t « j£C C .-S^ ^ r\i-J > — M

3 3 3

c c c

O O <N

1 §E în I

in en •—

I 1 1S & &

£ > js £ >O O O

O O ^f O

= * _ § jjC r*-T ~-< "obO OO * nJu? * u. Zjj c - = y •§ ^ j

P-.O S ^§ c& js o "p, J S 'CCg * £<«

S S b

D

rffc >- 5.2s

t- W

A^ "

:n

a

me

(S

D

)n

n

vme

S

S

D

:s

l i l tOS

1/-v^

O fl>

o S

a| 1".C '— ^°-W yi

x £

u"

o = 3•CO. U

c -a'B

0

in — i

en

= "

m •—

c c

•|

j* ^

O O

s §

"b < £

5?

g

5

a

§c:

^ o

Sc

5?

E

a

me

e

sak

¥

1£3

3

'gom

2

^.2"e a

g

s

< J

VI

R

p

v

>

"^

0

cuedaw

a.

3

• g

VO

^:< n

iD

3

C_ o

"c d

e

S

O 3

Q ^

s f § I LS g -§

cr S

's « .5 Q , S> " -I "- §1

U Q £3 j_) i_i O

jjtlff

i .§ sa|gJ

u o v "o Q Q '-3& 0 > b fi > O — ™2 a 2 c -a t3 g§1 §1I£IU 0U G §c3 to

U 3 PJ U

60 «

r7 B « ^ l S)•^ C T * * c §

j_ , v > c-j 3 ^

if J o-l|c1•§, 5•§

tj — ; -rt Sê s. « < | ^-?

OH hS PH

3 3 3£

c b "

en _ c

•^ ~! ^ §rt .« . .O

«>

x ua in SS S O

> » ^ r-

c c c.2 .2 .2

I I I</l W C/J

8 6 6

§ 2 ?

i l l s

su

o

I I

£c'So50

I I

of

I I

ai"~

11

1

1

Sa

'•3< u

c

•O

Q

S 3

a

t

1

•S^G

•O

D

1

compared with th e crit ical value of the standard normal distribution a t a se t

significance level (1.96 for one contrast and 2.24 for three contrasts). If the

con t ras t v a lu e exceeded the critical value, the difference b e t w e e n t h e t w o

effect sizes was considered sign ifican t. B ecau se of the risk of Type 1 errors

result ing from multiple comparisons for each construct, we used a s imul-

taneous t es t procedure (Bonfer roni inequal i t i es) and se t the s ign i f icance

level as well as cri t ical values according to the number of contrasts

conducted (Hedges & Olkin , 1985). An inspec t ion for s tudies tha t mayhave cont r ibu ted ou t l i ers was conducted for the major analyses; no clear

outliers were found.

The final set of analyses involved t es t ing the moderator variables. These

analyses were computed a t the s tudy level . When avai lable , a to ta l of s ix

moderator variables were teste d for. Two types of moderator variables

were present in two domains: (a) age of child ( infant , toddler, school age)

an d (b) l e n g t h of observation (less than 30 min, 30-59 min, 60 or more

min). In addi t ion , four other moderators could be assessed in on ly one of

the domains. Across- t ime data was used to t es t whether the method of

assessment (observation, self-report from quest ionnai re or in t erview) af -

fected the levels of similari ty. In addit ion, the impact of the t ime interval

between assessments (6 months or l ess , more than 6 bu t l ess than or equal

to 12 mon ths, over 12 mon ths) was examine d in this domain. For the

across-children studies, the age difference betwee n the ch i ldren a t the t ime

of the assessment (same age vs. differen t ages) was tested. Type ofs i tuat ion (different set t ings vs. different tasks) was assessed in the across-

s i t u a t i o n s analyses. Analyses resu l t ed in a Qb, which fo l lows a ch i -square

distribution and has p—l degrees of f reedom where p i s the number of

leve ls . I f there was a s ign i f ican t Qb, the means of the two or more l evels

of th e modera tor var iable were s ign i f ican t ly different from each o ther

(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Follow-up linear contrasts were conducted among

th e m e a n w e i g h t e d effect sizes in the case of a s ignif icant Qh when there

were more than two levels of the moderator variable.

Results

Similarities in Child Rearing

Test-Retest Reliability

Interpreta tion of the results from individual s tudies is dependent

on th e reliability of the assessment in s t ru men ts ; th e similarity

observed cannot exceed the reliability of the method (Alder &

Scher, 1994; Nunnally, 1978). Test-retest reliability of measures

of child rearing has been examined with two methods—behavioral

observations and atti tude questionnaires . Correlations of maternal

behavior based on repeated observations of the same mother-child

dyad in the same activity a t the same location (generally free play

in the home or laboratory) over a short period of t ime (from 3 days

to 1 month apart) were reported in 11 studies.5 The med ian

correlation was .59, ranging from a low of .35 to a high of .78.

These results indicate that repeated observations of matern a l be-

havior over a short period of time do provide a moderate degree of

reliability.

The test-retest reliability of global a t t i tude questionnaires is

typically higher than the re tes t re liability of observational data.

Althou gh retes t data were not included in the present articles with

enough frequency to be summarized, a review of a t t i tude ques-

tionnaires f o u n d tha t the mean test-retest reliability for 12 ins tru-

ments that used samples of parents was .74 (range = .61 to .89;

Holden & Edwards, 1989). These reliability limits should be kept

in mind when in terpreting the following f indings.

Results at the Study Level

R es u l ts from th e study level revealed that high levels of child-

rearing s imilarity were f o u n d in the across-children (r = .50, p <

.001, CI = .487.53, k = 10,n = 1,670; Q = 95.35, p < .001) and

th e across-time (r = .45, p < .001, CI = .437.46, k = 47,

n = 3,786; Q = 497.40, p < .001) studies. The mean effect size

from the across-situations s tudies was s ignificant as well butshowed less similarity than the other domains (r = .26, p < .001,

CI = .207.32, k=l2,n = 509, Q = 47.14, p < .001). Con tras t

tes ts revealed that the effect size for the across-children similarity

was s ignificantly s tronger than the across-time and the across-

s i tu a t ion s effect sizes (Z CT = 2.47, p < .05, zcs = 5.93, p < .05,

respectively). The across-time effect size was also significantly

higher than the across-situations effect size (ZTS = 4.80, p < .05).

However, the results a t the s tudy level were qualif ied by the

finding of heterogeneity for all three domains. Nevertheless , the

fail-safe Ns for the three domains ar e substantial. It wou ld

take 64,553 s tudies with null results to make the across-time

res u l t s n on s ign if ican t . Th e comparable n u mber of s tudies for the

across-children data is 6,441 and for the across-situations data

is 976.

Results at the Individual C onstruct Level

Meta-analyses a t the individual construct level provide the most

precise information about s imilarity of child rearing. However,

tha t set of analyses was limited by sample size; in several cases,

there were an insufficient number of s tudies to provide a u sefu l

es timate. Nevertheless , meta-analyses could be computed to assess

th e child-rearing s imilarity of seven or more of the 11 con s t ru c ts in

each of the three domains.

Similarity across time. A total of 47 longitudinal s tudies con-

tributed to these analyses; s tability could be assessed in all 11child-rearing constructs . The results, listed in Table 7, indicated

that significant levels of s tability were found on all the constructs ,

with a median effect size of .38 (range = .20 to .55). Except for the

con s t ru c ts n on in volvemen t an d monitor that were assessed in only

three and five s tudies , respectively, the effect sizes for the remain-

in g constructs were based on an average of 14.7 studies.

Heterogeneous results were present with all 11 constructs . How-

ever, the heterogeneity was a result of the variation in the magni-

tude of the positive effect sizes. For example, the construct that

showed the most varia tion across s tudies was control. The heter-

ogeneous result was due to correlations that ranged from .20 to .82,

with an overall effect size of .53.

Similarity across children. Seven of the 11 child-rearing con-

s tructs could be tes ted in this domain, with information from a totalof 10 studies. All effect sizes were s ignificant and in the moderate

range, with a median r of .38 (range = .33 to .59). Of the 7

constructs , 5 manifes ted heterogeneous results (see Table 8). The 2

constructs with homogeneous results , indicating s imilar results ,

were positive affect (r = .44) and responsiveness (r = .38).

5These s tudies were Bates et al . (1982); Belsky (1980); D u n n et al .

(1985); Frankel et al. (1980); Green et al. (1980); Holden (1983); L e y e n -

decker, Lamb, Scholmerich, and Fricke (1997); Lyt ton and Zwirner (1975);

Merrill (1946); Tamis-LeMonda et al. (1998); and Wachs (1987).

Table 7

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing Constructs: Similarities Across Time

Construct

CaregiveControl

EncouragementInteractionMonitorNegative affect

NoninvolvementPositive affectResponsivenessStimulationVerbalization

r

.20**

.53**

.55**

.38**

.35**

.48**

.39**

.45**

.38**

.34**

.29**

95% confidenceinterval: lower/upper

* .141.21* .507.55

* .507.58.347.41

.307.40

.457.51

.307.47

.427.48

.347.41

.307.38

.247.34

k

822

8185

143

18171611

N

454

1,570

4511,081

5141,377

11 11,296

1,281853586

G

19.93**202.50***

95.13***104.79***109.80***234.80***

8.33*179.50***200.17***

49.30***59.34***

Fail-safe N

27321,141

1,17820,072

6718,930

1628,2165,6582,7341,089

* / > < .05. **p<.01. ***;?<.001.

Similarity across situations. Twelve studies involving obser-

vations of the same parent-child dyads in two or more settings or

situations had suff icient data to be analyzed. Cross-situationaldata

were available on eight of the child-rearing constructs (Table 9).

Significant cross-situational similarity in parenting behavior was

fou n d for all but one construct.The effect sizes ranged from a high

of r = .38 (interaction) to a low of r = .06 (verbalization), with a

median ES of .22. Besides interaction, the constructs that showed

the strongest effect sizes were control, responsiveness, and posi-

tive affect; all were in the medium range. Despite the small number

of studies that have assessed cross-situation similarity in parenting,

half of the constructs had heterogeneous results.

Comparison of E f f e c t Sizes Across Domains

Quantitative comparisons were conducted to test the signifi-

cance of differences between the effect sizes for each constructacross the three domains. Contrasts could be computed on eight of

the child-rearing constructs. Of the 22 contrasts, 13 were signifi-

cant at the .05 level (see Table 10). Only two of the eight con-

structs (responsiveness and interaction) did not show significant

differences in the levels of similarity across domains. For the

remaining constructs, across-time similarity effect sizes were sig-

nif icantly larger than across situations in six contrasts (control,

encouragement, negative affect, positive affect, stimulation, and

verbalization) and larger than across children in two contrasts

(control and encouragement). The across-children effect size was

larger than the across-situations data for four constructs (negative

affect, positive affect, stimulation, and verbalization), and for one

construct (verbalization), the across-children effect size was sig-

nificant ly stronger than the across-time ES.

For example, parental control had a significantly larger effect

size across time, indicating more stability in that domain than in

the other two domains (zts = 3.94; ztc = 2.83, both exceeding the

critical value of 2.24). However, the effect sizes for parental

control did not differ between situations and children (zsc = .44).

The construct verbalization showed a different pattern. Here, the

effect size for across children was significantly larger than across

time, indicating verbalization is more stable across different chil-

dren than for the same children over time (zct = 5.65).

Moderator Variables

Homogeneity tests at the study level indicated the moderator

variables warranted examination in all three child-rearing domains.

Sufficient data were available to analyze four moderator variables

Table 8

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing Constructs: Similarities Across Children

Construct

CaregiveControlEncouragementInteractionMonitorNegative affectNoninvolvementPositive affectResponsivenessStimulationVerbalization

95% confidencer interval: lower/upper k

.34***

.33***—

—

.51***—

.44***

.38***

.36***

.59***

.237.44

.267.39——

.487.54—

.417.47

.307.44

.297.42

.547.63

34

——

6—

8345

N

135324

—1,050

—1,246

257303343

Q

18.68***8.60*

—

106.69***—

5.765.37

23.44***

27.38***

Fail-safe N

_96

250

2,360

2,740169177

1,267

Note. Dashes indicate no t enough data were available for an analysis.*p<.05. * * * / > < .001.

Table 9

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing C onstructs: Similarities Across Situations

Const ruc t

Caregive

Control

E n c o u r a g e m e n tInteractionMoni tor

Negative affectN o n i n v o l v e m e n tPosit ive affect

ResponsivenessStimulationVerbalization

r

.30***

.20***

.38***—

.18***

.24***

.26***

.15***

.06

95 % c o n f i d e n c ein te rval: lower/upper

.217.38

.107.28

.297.46—

.077.28

.147.34

.177.34

.077.23-.057.16

k

4

44

—

2

365

3

N

187

202174

—160

19425 1

29 7160

Q

2.62

0.8711.50**

0.08

7.13*

46.30***

0.188.56*

Fail-safe N

90

39189

13

70350

44

6

Note. Dashes indicate n ot enough data were avai lable for an analysis .* p < .05. **p<.01. ***/>< .001.

for the across-time studies (child age, observation length, assess-

men t method, and time interval between assessments), two mod-

erator variables for the across-children studies (child age and age

discrepancy between children at t ime of assessment), and three

moderator variables for the across-situations studies (child age,

observation length, and type of the si tuations).

Par tial support was f o u n d for the hypothesis that child rearing

wou ld be more stable with older children than with younger

children. Resul ts indicated that maternal behavior was most s table

with school-aged children and the least s table w ith infants when

assessed across time. Studies that began with school-aged children

ha d an average r of .53. Effect sizes for s tudies that s tar ted when

children were toddlers averaged .44, and studies beginning in

infancy had an average r of .40. The difference among the three

levels was s igni f ican t , Qb = 17.84, p < .001, and the contr as t

be tween s tudies wi th infan t s and studies w ith school-aged childrenwa s also significant. Similarly, mothers were more stable across

children with older children (see Table 11 for the statistics). Th e

Table 10

Comparison of Similarity E f f e c t Sizes Across Do mains

at the Construct Level

Domains compared

C o n s t r u c t

CaregiveControl

E n c o u r a g e m e n tInteractionMonitorNegative affectN o n i n v o l v e m e n tPosit ive affect

ResponsivenessStimulationVerbalization

Time/childcrit ical value

(Z)

2.83*

4.00*

0.90

0.300.040.255.65*

Time/situation

critical value

(Z)

3.94*

5.19*0

—

4.27*

3.23*1.933.08*

2.79*

Child/situationcritical value

(Z)

.441.61

—

4.65*

3.06*1.522.73*

6.70*

Note. Dashes indicate n ot enough data were avai lable for an analysis.

*p < .05.

largest average effect size wa s found with s tudies when both

children were at least school-aged (r = .52). The average effect

size w as lower when both ch ildren were toddlers (r = .40) or whe n

both children were infants (r = .44). Follow-up contrasts indicated

that studies with school-aged children had significant ly greater ES

than studies with toddlers. With regard to age of child and maternal

behavior in the across-situations domain, the effect s izes un expec t-

edly revealed that parenting wasmore stable with infants than with

toddlers (only one study included children in the school-age

range). Studies condu cted with infan ts had a larger effect size (r =

.40) than those conducted with toddlers (r = .19).

Th e second moderator variable examined was the length of

observation. I t was expected th at s tudies with longer observational

periods wou ld resul t in more similar maternal behavior tha n stud-

ies with shorter observational periods. Analyses provided some

support for that hypothesis. In the across-time domain, maternalbehavior was more stable for observations that lasted 30 min to 59

mi n (r = .52) compared with shorter observations (r = .41).

However , th e longest observations (r = .41) were less stable than

th e moderate length observations as well. Th e three levels were

significantly different , Qb = 6.16, p < .05. Observation length as

a moderator variable wa s also examined in the across-situations

data for short and moderate observations (only one study had an

observation length of one hour or more). The resul ts were in the

predicted direction, but n o sign ificant differen ce was f o u n d be -

tween the short and moderate observation lengths, Qb = .48, p =

.5. Comparable analyses could not be computed in the across-

children domain because al l but one of the eight observational

studies assessed parental behavior in less than 30 min.

The remaining four moderator variables were not able to be

tes ted in more than on e domain . Two moderator variables (assess-

ment method & duration of time between assessments) were

unique to the across-time studies. It was predicted that s tudies

using questionnaire or inte rview methodologies wou ld reveal more

similari ty than studies using an observational methodology. Th e

resul ts were con sistent w ith this hypothesis. Effect sizes fo r s tudies

us ing self-report data averaged .50 compared with an aver age

effect size of .41 for behavioral measures. It was also predicted

that shorter time spans between visi ts would resul t in greater

stability of child-rearing behavior. Th e moderator, when div ided

Table 11

Moderator Variables Associated With Similarity Analyses at the Study Level

Variable

Child ageInfant (<1 year)Toddler (1-5 year)School-age (> 5 years)

Observation leng thShort (<30 min)

Moderate (30-59 min)Long (a60min)

Assessment methodObservationSelf-reports

Assessment intervalShort (<6mos)Medium (> 6 < 12 mos)Long (>12 mos)

Child age discrepancySame ag eDifferent ag e

Type of situationsDifferent settingsDifferent tasks

k

4323155

3185

1843331047

71723

Across time

Qr between

17.84***.40.44.53

6.16*.41.52.41

7.20**.41.50

13.41**.52.38.46

Qwithin k

227.79*** 10126.70*** 3

57.77*** 343.29*** 4

173.90***22.90**22.60***

128.50***221.70***157.80***

64.90***245.29***

10.5878.26***

156.46***1064

Across children

Q Qr between within

5.89* 41.8***.44 1.64

.40 1.36

.52 38.80***

5.56* 42.12***.43 3.32.52 38.80***

k

1138

107

3

12

3

9

Across situations

Q Qr between within

4.15* 3.59.40 0.79.19 2.80

0.48 20.70**.25 18.8**.33 1.90

0.22

.22 2.38

.27 20.60**

*/?<.05. **p<.01. * * * / > < . 0 0 1 .

into three levels, was significant, Qb = 13.41, p < .01. Follow-up

contrasts indicated that the average effect size for studies with the

shortest time spans (r = .52) was larger than the ES for moderate

time spans (r = .38) but not significantly different than the ES for

time spans over 12 months (r = .46).

The moderator variable unique to the across-children domain

concerned the age differences between children at the time of

assessment. Some studies included assessments of the childrenwhen they were the same age (k = 6) in contrast to other inves-

tigations that assessed the children at the same point in time and

with the children being two or more years in age apart (k = 4). The

effect sizes for the two levels of the moderator variable were

significantly different, Qb = 5.56, p < .05, with studies assessing

maternal behavior with children when they were different ages at

the time of assessment being more stable (r = .52) than in studies

where the mothers were observed longitudinally and the children

were the same age (r = .43).

The final moderator variable that was examined occurred in the

across-situations domain: those studies that manipulated the set-

tings (k = 3) in contrast to those that explored different tasks

within the same setting (k = 9). No difference was f o u n d between

the two situation types, Qb = .22, p = .65.

Differences in Child Rearing

Just over half (55%) of the studies provided data for tests

examining differences in child rearing. The difference results are

reported at the study level and the individual constructs level.

Results at the Study Level

Tests of differences at the study level revealed statistically

significant effect sizes for all three domains, indicating that moth-

ers were behaving differently. The largest ES was f o u n d in the

across-situations studies (d = .52, CI = .417.64, k = 13,n = 605;

Q = 47.14, p < .7), followed by the across-time results (d = .40,

CI = .347.47, k = 27,n = 2,014; Q = 37.48, p < .2) and then the

across-children studies (d = .23, CI = .127.34, k = 7, n = 640;

Q = 16.71, p < .01). The across-situations and across-time anal-

yses were homogeneous in contrast to the significant Q statistic

f o u n d in the across-children data. The fail-safe Ns for the across-time and across-situations domains were substantial (3,124 & 809,

respectively). In the case of the across-children data, the fail-safe

number still represents a considerable number of studies necessary

to refute the conclusions f o u n d here (n = 150). Contrasts revealed

that the across-situations ES was significantly larger than that of

the across-children ES (zsc = 2.54). The across-time effect size did

n o t differ significant ly from either domain.

Results at the Individual Construct Level

Each of the 11 child-rearing constructs had at least three studies

that reported difference tests in one or more domains. The most

data were f o u n d for the across-time analyses. Twenty-seven lon-

gitudinal studies provided difference data; an average of 9 studies(range = 3 to 16) contributed to each of the 11 child-rearing

constructs. The results, listed in Table 12, indicate that significant

differences were found on all the constructs, with a median effect

size of .36 (range = .27 to .71). However, only two constructs

provided homogeneous results. Longitudinal child-rearing differ-

ences were, not surprisingly, largest with the construct caregive

(d = .71), although that finding was qualified by its heterogeneity.

The two other variables showing the greatest difference across

time were verbalization (d = .57) and stimulation (d = .52).

Monitor and noninvolvement, though limited by few studies,

showed the least amount of difference (rfs = .27, .29, respectively).

SIMILARITY IN PARENTING 24 1

Table 12

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing Constructs: Differences Across Time

Cons truct

Caregive

Control

E n co u r ag e m e n tInte ract ion

M o n i t o rNegat ive affect

N o n i n v o l v e m e n t

Posi t ive affect

Respons ivenessStimulation

Verbalizat ion

d

71***

.36***

.40***

.34***27***

.38***29**

.32***34***

.52***

.57***

k

916

513

47

3

16

810

7

N

388

1,153

21 8652

448777

185

1,053482

400

273

Q

66.72***

26.92*

9.54*19.24

3.0117.83**

5.8833.28**

1.74

19.08*

30.14***

9 5 % co n f id e n ce

inte rval: lower /upper

.567.86

.287.44

.21/.59

.237.45

.147.40

.287.48

.097.50

.247.41

.217.47

.387.66

.397.74

Fail-safeN

683

763

7737 1

3727 3

15

756157379

278

< .05. **/?<.01. ***/><.001.

In the across-children domain, only s ix constructs could be

tes ted (see Table 13). Differen ce tes ts were s ignifican t for all s ix,

with effect sizes in the small to moderate range. The three con-

s tructs manifes ting the most difference across children were pos-itive affect (d = .75), control (d = .50), and interaction (d = .49).

However, some of the effect sizes were heterogeneous and were

based on an average of on ly four s tu d ies .

In contrast, all but four of the 10 constructs tes ted in the

across-situations domain showed homoge neou s results in the small

to moderate range (.23 to .72) as can be seen in Table 14.

Differences in parenting across co ntexts were most pronoun ced for

in teraction (d = .72), verbalization (d = .70), and responsiveness

(d — .65); th e smallest difference effect sizes occurred with neg-

ative affect (d = .23), positive affect (d = .30), and noninvolve-

m e n t (d = .31).

Comparison of Effect Sizes Across Domains

Contrasts examining differences among the effect sizes for each

construct across th e domains revealed that only one of the 22

contrasts was significant. For the construct in teraction, the across-

situations effect size wa s larger than th e across-time effect size

(z = 2.45), indicating that more difference wa s fou n d in s tudies

assessing levels of maternal in teraction across different con tex ts

than over t ime.

Moderator Variables

Homogeneity tes ts for the s tudies examining differences in

child-rearing behavior revealed that a t the s tudy level, only the

across-children re sults were heterogen eous. B ecause of the limited

number of s tudies that contributed to the difference analyses in the

across-children domain (k = 7), moderator variables were n ot

examined.

Direction of Change

The direction of change in individual constructs could on ly be

examined in the difference data for the across-time domain. We

assessed patterns of change for the 11 constructs by examining the

n u m b e r of s tudies in which a particular construct showed a s ig-nif icant increase, decrease, mixed result, or nonsignificant change

(see Table 15). If there were multiple measures of the same

construct in a particular s tudy, they were averaged. The cleares t

trend was with caregive. Th e mean level decreased in a majority

(67%) of the s tudies (k = 6), showed mixed results in one s tu d y ,

Table 13

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing Constructs: Differences Across Children

Co n s t r u c t

Caregive

ControlEncouragement

InteractionMonitor

Negative affectN o n in v o lv e m e n tPositive affect

Responsiveness

Stimulat ionVerbalization

d

.50***

.32**49**

—

.22***—

.75***

——

33**

k

442

—

5

—3

—

—3

N

—177202

87—

544—

129——127

Q

—

19.13***10.61*

0.93—

19.11***—

4.31

——

1.61

95 % co n f id e n ce

inte rval: lower /upper

—

.287.71

.127.51

.187.79—

.107.34

—.49/1.00

——

.097.58

Fail-safe

N

—

703512

—92—85

——15

Note, Dashes indicate n ot enough data were available for an analysis.

*p < .05. **/?<.01. ***/><. 001.

Table 14

Meta-Analytic Results for Child-Rearing Constructs: Differences Across Situation

Construct

Caregive

Control

EncouragementInteraction

Monitor

Negative affect

Noninvolvement

Positive affect

Responsiveness

StimulationVerbalization

d

49***

.48***

.46***

.72***—

.23

.31*

.30**

.65***52***

.70***

k

3

5

57

—

4464

118

N

128227

108239—

12788

21423 2531367

Q

2.2710.88*

2.213.92

—

1.5921.70***

46.76***

5.2913.4015.68*

95% confidence

interval: lower/upper

.247.73

.297.67

.197.73

.547.91

—

-.017.48.007.62.117.50.467.84

.407.65

.557.85

Fail-safe

N

31127

34298—

53047

143686544

Note. Dashes indicate not enough data were available for an analysis.*p<.05. * * p < .01 . * * * p < . 0 0 1 .

an d was not significant in two other studies. The two other appar-

ent patte rns of change were l imited by the small num ber of studies:

Monitor decreased over time in two of the four studies thatassessed i t but had n ons ignificant resul ts in other two studies. In

contrast, noninvolvement increased in two of the three studies in

which it was included but i t was nons igni f ican t in the r emain ing

s tudy. The other eight constructs showed differing degrees of

mixed, nonsignificant, or confl icting resul ts.

Summary of the Similarity and Difference Results

This meta-analysis has found evidence fo r both similarities in

child rearing as well as differences. Resul ts at the study level

indicate that the across-children data showed the highest correla-

t ions, fol lowed closely by the across-time and then the across-

situations data. The resul ts from the analyses of means were

complementary: Across-children data showed the least amount of

Table 15

Summary of Direction of Change by Construct

at the Study Level

Percentage of studies

Increased

Construct

Caregive

Control

EncouragementInteractionMonitor

Negat ive affec t

N o n i n v o l v e m e n t

Positive affectResponsiveness

Stimula t ion

Verbalization

%

25

207

—

4367

6502029

k

4

11

—

3214

22

Decreased

%

676

20235014—

3813—

—

k

61

132

2—

61

—

—

Mixed

%

1119

2046———

25255057

k

13

16

———

4254

Nonsig-

nificant

%

2244

201550143325—

3014

k

17

122114

—31

Note. Some rows do not add up to 100% because of studies that could not

be classified because of insuff ic ien t informat ion . Dashes indicate not

enough data were avai lable for an analysis.

difference, and the across-situations effect revealed th e most dif-

ference. As predicted, the across-situations data, compared with

the two other domains, revealed the greatest level of variation inchild rearing.

The findings at the individual construct level paint a sl ightly

different picture of the degree of similarity an d differenc e across

the three domains. Once again, it was clearly the across-situations

analyses that yielded th e greatest differences in parental behavior.

Ou t of the 15 similarity contrasts across domains involving across-

si tuations studies, two thirds of the contrasts indicated that cross-

situation effect sizes were significantly less similar than the com-

parable effect sizes in on e of the other two domains. The remaining

similarity contrasts indicated no significant differences across do-

mains. For the difference comparisons, only one contrast was

significant, bu t once again th e resul t indicated greater variabil i ty

across different contexts than over time.

In l ine with th e predictions, but in contrast to the finding at the

study level, more similarity wa s found in individual constructs

across time compared with across children. Out of the seven

similari ty con trasts computed, three were sign ificant. In each case,

th e construct when assessed across time showed more similari ty

than when assessed across children. The two domains did not

differ significantly in effect size when difference scores were

examined.

With regard to the size of the effects, th e strongest evidence fo r

similarity in parenting was found in the across-time dom ain. Sixty-

four percent of the child-rearing constructs showed a large effect

size, an d another 27% showed moderate levels of similarity. Sim-

ilarly, 57% of the across-children analyse s showe d large effect

sizes, with the remaining ones indicating moderate levels. How-ever, in the case of the constructs in the across-si tuations domain,

only one (13%) had a large similarity ES, and 50% had medium

effect sizes. The difference an alyses showed the converse: Across-

situations effect sizes were th e largest. Seventy percent of the

individual constructs in this domain had effect sizes at .46 or over.

In contrast, only 50% of the across-children and 27% of the

across-time effect sizes were of this magnitude or greater .

Although the constructs in general showed the pattern of more

stability across time and the least across situations, there were

some differing patterns of variability on particular constructs. Fo r




example, as one would expect, caregive (assessed only across

t ime) had the lowest s imilarity ES but the highest ES of the

difference scores. In contras t, negative affect showed large effect

sizes for similarity across time and children, along with small

difference effect sizes in all three domains. Th e pattern fo r control

was different . Although considerable child-rearing s tability over

time was fou n d , there were also moderate levels of variability

present in parenting across offspring and s ituations.

Discussion

The results of this review reveal a different picture of child

rearing than is commonly depicted in the research literature. When

the data ar e derived from a moving picture of parent-child inter-

ac t ion —s pan n in g time, different children, or multiple con tex ts —

they show that child rearing can indeed be characterized by vari-

ation and change. At the same time, evidence was fou n d for the

utili ty of the snapshot: Child-rearing practices assessed a t on e t ime

ca n reflect an endu ring characteris tic that persis ts over t ime, across

different offspring, or to a less extent, across settings or tasks.

Ironically, several child-rearing variables, such as responsive-

ness, positive affect, an d control, recognized as fu n d amen ta l ly

impor tan t in paren t in g (Hold en , 1997), were fou n d to be exemplars

of both s imilarity and difference. Althou gh the two sets of analyses

computed here assessing change (through rela tive rankings and

mean leve ls ) ar e in d epen d en t , th e analyses provided converging

results . Consequently, we conclude that the nature of child rearing

is s imu l tan eou s ly en d u r in g an d different . However, th e mean in g of

differences in child rearing deserves some clarif ication. In fact,

two very different types of difference ar e implied. When assessed

in the across-children or across-situations s tudies , the nature of the

difference reflected a capacity to adjust o r modify child-rearing

behavior in response to the child or to the immediate context. In

the across-time s tudies , the assumption is that the difference in

child rearing reflects a more durable type of transformat ion.To observers of parental behavior, the verdict that child rearing

is both en d u r in g an d different i s no t surpris ing. Perhaps what is

remarkable is the relative lack of research a t ten t ion tha t ha s been

devoted to parental variability and change. Below we discuss why

these two qualit ies of child rearing coexis t, the limitations of our

data base, and the theoretical and empirical implications of the

coexis ting child-rearing characteris tics .

The Coexistence of Differing and Enduring Child Rearing

W hy does this paradox exis t? The ex plan a t ion , we believe, lies

in th e in terplay of the methodology and the phen omen on of child

rearing. Four considerations help to reveal the n a tu re of the para-

dox: the domain of analyses, the particular con struct assessed, the

level of analysis , and the methodological design.

The Domain of Analysis

Perhaps the cleares t result from this meta-analysis, after the

f inding of both stability and change, comes at the domain level:

The leas t amount of s imilarity and greates t difference was found

in the across-situations analyses. This f inding is reminiscent of

Mischel's (e.g., 1984) and others ' (e .g. , Magnusson & Statt in ,

1998) argum en t that the person-situation in te raction is a better unit

of analysis fo r u n d ers tan d in g pa t te rn s of behavior than personality

characteris tics alone. However, the determinants of child rearing

ar e fur ther complicated by the three-way in teraction of the

parent- child-situation.

Indeed, child-rearing s tability can b e max imized —or min i-

mized —by the ex ten t to which the meas u remen ts a re k ep t wi th in

particular child-rearing domains. This review has systematically

analyzed three types of domains: t ime, children, an d s i tu a t ion s . Atth e same time, there are man y o the r ways in which d omain

specifici ty of social development can be conceptualized (see B u -

gental & Goodnow, 1998). For example, B orns te in and his col-

leagues (e .g. , Bornstein, Vibbert, Tal, & O'Donnell, 1992) have

identified two different modes that caregiver in teraction takes with

infants: social and didactic. These in teraction modes are orthogo-

nal , and con s eq u en t ly o n e c a n expect to f ind grea te r stabil i ty

wi t h in than across domains.

Fiske (1992) has proposed another type of parent-child d omain .

He posited that there are four elementary and universal forms of

in teractions that can characterize social re la tionships ( c o m m u n a l

shar ing, au thor i ty ran k in g , eq u a l ity ma tch in g , an d market pricing).

Children progress through these modes in a fixed on togen e t icorder, according to Fiske. If this theory is accurate , it follows then

tha t child rearing should be more s table while within a particular

re la t ionship. Indeed, developmental transit ions, such as the on s e t

of walk in g or pu ber ty , can b e t h o u g h t of as repres en t in g a domain

change and are thus likely to evoke n e w patterns o f child rearing

(e.g., Campos et ah, 1992; Steinberg, 1981).

One other example of a domain-specific model of child rearing

is especially pertinent to issues of stability an d chan ge . Smetan a

(1997) recently argued that child rearing is s trongly affected by

whether the issue a t han d concerns a moral, social-con ven tional,

prudential (safety), o r personal topic. Given that parents differen-

t ia te among and respond different ly to the n a tu re of the con cern ,

child-rearing similarity is likely affected. A second reason why it

is impor tan t to recogn ize wha t th e particular domain is is tha tacross t ime, parents ' focus of concern will shift from p r u d e n t i a l

concerns to moral and s oc ia l-con ven t ion a l transgressions. Once

again, th e clear prediction is tha t wi th in a domain, greater s imi-

larity in child-rearing practices will be fou n d , compared with

across domain . The three examples above of child-rearing domains

illus tra te that th e degree of similarity fou n d can b e a f u n c t i o n of

the domain specificity and child 's age.

The Child-Rearing Construct

Even more specific to the nature of the child-rearing in teraction

than th e domain is the particular construct under examination.

Constructs vary on multiple dimensions, but the most importantdis tinctions here are the degree to which the construct is linked to

th e child's developmental level and the extent to which it is

centered in the child, the parent, or the dyadic relationship. Three

constructs that are closely tied to a child's developmental level are

caregive, s t imulation, an d verbalization. In con trast, a variable that

is less closely aligned with the child's developmental level is the

parent's emotionality (positive or negative affect). In the across-

time analysis of difference s, the f irs t three con structs had moderate

effect sizes, in contras t to the small effect sizes of the two affect

variables. Consequently, maternal emotionality showed greater




similarity over time in terms of mean levels than constructs that are

more child-centered.

The variable that appears to be most parent-centered of all

th e 11 constructs, an d t h u s reflects individual parental differences,

is monitoring. Although it has not been assessed in many of the

investigations included in this meta-analysis , more similarity was

found in this construct than many of the others. Th e explanation

for this lies in that monitoring likely depends more on suchd e te rmin an ts a s enduring interest in a child an d conscientiousness

than on the child's actions or developmental level (Crouter, Mac-

Dermid, McHale, & Perry-Jenkins, 1990). Finally, the constructs

responsiveness an d interaction ar e dyadic in nature, and, depend-

in g on how they ar e operationalized, may manifest either similarity

or difference.

Level of Analysis

Another key to the enduring-different paradox lies in the level

of analysis. As was revealed in the tests of moderators, similarity

varied as a funct ion of the level of analysis. This proposition could

not be fully tested b ut was partially supported by the finding that

verbal reports (most often assessing global attitudes) were more

stable across time than behavioral data.

That observation leads to another: Child-rearing variables are

conceptually nested within each other, with lower-level ones re-

flect ing more context-specificityan d therefore being multiply de -

termined. Although there ar e insufficient data to test this proposi-

t ion , there appears to be a hierarchy of child-rearing variables. At

th e most general level are the overarching parental traits or styles.

Despite th e lack of data concerning th e stability of styles (Darling

& Steinberg, 1993), it is likely that such traits represent th e

superordinate level of assessment as the other child-rearing vari-

ables may be a funct ion of the particular parenting trait. Below

traits ar e global child-rearing values, reflecting parents' enduring

principles that by definition transcend specific attitudes, intentions,or typical reactions to a situation or particular child. Child-rearing

va lu es concerning morality, respecting authority, indiv idual i sm,

an d caring fo r others ar e prominent examples (e.g., Kohn, 1979).

On e step down from values ar e child-rearing attitudes concern-

in g evaluations of attitude objects. These evaluations ar e more

specific than values as they may take into account some specific-

i ty, such as the child's developmental level or gender (e.g., th e

appropriateness of spanking young children, tolerance of emo-

t ional expression in boys vs . girls). Consequently, attitudes ar e

more l ikely than values to show change over t ime, be child-

specific, or to manifest situational variability. Nevertheless, some

atti tudes endure. Attitudes toward maternal investment in the

motherhood role have been fou n d to be relatively stable over 30

m o n t h s (r = .65) and even across 6 years (r = .48; Hock, 1988,cited in Hock & DeMeis, 1990).

A four th level of variables that is more responsive to situational

considerations is behavioral intentions or self-reported behavior

preferences (e.g., Fishbein & Azjen, 1974). Intentions to behave in

particular ways take into account some of the situational exigen-

cies bu t ignore others. Consequently, intentions ar e likely to be

more similar than actual behavior. Child-rearing behavioral inten-

t ions ar e often assessed as responses to hypothetical vignettes (e.g.,

"How would you behave i f . . . "). Other social cognition variables

involved in child rearing (e.g., attributions, perceptions), insofar as

they have been studied in the literature, would also fi t at this level

of specificity. The final class of variables, and the one most

susceptible to contextual considerations, is observed behavior.

Such behavior may reflect enduring patterns, but it is also at the

mercy of the child's behavior or any of the influences listed in

Table 2.

Partial support for this scheme can be fou n d across domains.

Child-rearing practices across situations—which relied exclusivelyon observational data—showed the most difference among the

three domains. The cross-situational correlations (ranging from .06

to .38) indicate that parenting is considerably less consistent than

what has been found in the person-situation literature (e.g., Funder

& Colvin, 1991). This inconsistency can be accounted for in

several ways. One might expect similarity across situations if the

parent was exposed to similar contextual variables or held similar

goals for the situation. However, the methodology used likely

accentuated differences by comparing child rearing across diver-

g e n t situations. For example, all 10 studies that conducted labo-

ratory observations of mother-child behavior presented different

tasks fo r each situation, such as comparing parental behavior in

block construction or story retelling tasks (e.g., Pratt, Kerig ,

Cowan , & Cowan, 1988). Similarly, home and laboratory compar-

isons typically involved very different situations. Fo r example,

Crockenberg an d Litman (1990) contrasted observations of a lab-

oratory clean-up task with dinner preparation time.

Methodological Design

The moderator analyses computed on the across-time data re-

vealed the impact of several features of the methodological design

on the effect sizes. Besides self-reports having a larger similarity

effect size than observations, studies using older children showed

more similarity than studies using i n fan t s (except fo r across situ-

ations); longitudinal assessments less than 6 months apart resulted

in greater stability than longer intervals; and studies that usedmed iu m-len g th observations (30 to 59 min ) revealed more parental

stability than either shorter or longer observations. Part of this last

finding was not predicted but may be accounted for by the nature

of th e observations. Observations that lasted an hour or longer

most likely included behavior samples from different activities or

contexts and consequently were more varied. Instead, more cir-

cumscribed observations, but those long enough to provide a good

behavioral sample, resulted in greater stability. As the moderator

analyses make clear, a study can be designed to optimize stability

or change.

Appraisal of the Database

The conclusions of this meta-analysis are tempered by the

n u mber an d quality of studies found in the literature. Given th e

popularity and longevity of research into parent-child relation-

ships, it is likely that we inadvertently omitted some studies that

should have been included. However, even if this data set is not

exhaustive, we believe it is representative of the extant published

an d unpublished research. At the same time, there are several

limitations to the data set. One consequence of parsing the studies

in to the framework we used wa s that 17% of the individual

construct effect-size analyses were based on only two or three

s tudies. Such computations warrant caution.




A more complete and balanced analysis of child-rearing simi-

lari t ies requires n ot j u s t a greater n u m b e r of studies bu t inv es t iga-

t ions tha t inc lude da ta from fa thers ; paren t s from different c u l t u r a l ,

e t h n i c , an d racia l b ackgrounds; an d s tudies tha t more sys t emat i -

cally test the moderator variables. For instance, in two studies that

inc luded b oth mothers an d fathers, both f o u n d lower levels of

similari ty in fathers ' than mothers' behavior (Belsky, Taylor, &

Rov ine , 1984; Lytton & Zwirn er , 1975). Socioeconomic status ca nalso affect similari ty in parenting. Thompson (1998) fou n d in his

rev iew tha t a t t achment r e la t ionships in middle-c lass mother - infan t

were more stable than in lower socioecon omic statu s families.

More broadly, th e data ar e parochial: Only 3% of the s tudies

inc luded da ta from a n o n w e s t e r n c o u n t r y .

T he da tab ase con ta in s o ther l imi ta t ions . A full analysis of child-

rearing similarities an d differences requires examination of both

correlational data and difference tests. However, both types of

analyses were r epor ted in less than one- third of the studies (n =

27). Conseque n t ly , in the cross- domain analyses , we were left with

compar ing rs an d ds derived from mostly different sets of studies.

Those two sets of studies differed on v ar ious d imensions , and

particular variables may have been confounded (e.g., age of child,

assessment l ength) . Another l imi ta t ion was tha t v ery few s tudies

compute d s imi lar i ty or difference scores separately for boys versus

girls, al though such a div is ion could be rev eal ing. Fo r example,

Kagan and Moss (1962) fou n d a median across-t ime cor re la tion of

.77 for maternal control of girls, but for boys, the comparable

correlat ion was .24.

It i s wor th cons ider ing whether th is meta-analysis provides an

ov eres t imat ion or underes t imat ion of parental similari ty. Overes-

t imat ion may resu l t from the bias to report at conferences or

publish studies that find stat ist ically significant levels of similarity.

U n su ccess fu l invest igat ions are far less l ikely to be reported in the

li terature (Roggman, Langlois, Hubbs-Tait , & Rieser-Danner,

1994). Howev er , b ecause s ign if ican t resu l t s cou ld be derived from

difference scores as well as similarity scores, we d o n o t t h i n k th emeta-analytic results overest imate child-rearing similari ty.

Al terna t iv e ly , i t can be argued that parental similari ty ha s been

underest imated for at least two methodological reasons. Most

(82%) of the studies included used observational procedures. How-

ever, on e problem with all of the observational studies reported

here is the failure to heed E ps te in 's (1 9 79 ) warning : At t empts to

characterize typical or s tab le b ehav ior cannot be effect ively ac -

complished with only on e ob serv at ion . Assessments of the short-

term similari ty of child-rearing behavior ar e genera l ly low; th e

median test-retest reliabili ty of observations was o n l y r = .58. A

more re l iab le index of typica l b ehav ior can be achiev ed through

aggregat ion , as Wachs (1987) an d L e y e n d e c k e r e t al. (1997) have

demons t ra t ed wi th ob serv at ions of mother- infan t in t erac t ions .

Howev er , if data are to be aggregated, it should only be d o n e

within the same situation and child so as not to lose v aluab le

information ab out how paren t s adjus t the i r b ehav ior across s i tua-

t ions an d children.

Another r e l iab i l i ty i ssue concerns th e i ssue of interobserver

reliabilities. Lo w re l iabi l ity a t t enua te s r esu l t s . If researchers cor-

rected for the reliability of the measurement instruments, then the

effect sizes may have increased (Alder & Scher, 1994). Observa-

t ional s tudies may also have underest imated parental similari ty

because of the lack of behavioral rat ings (used in only about 10%

of the across- t ime studies). Molecular variables that are typically

coded in observations capture on ly a m o d e s t a m o u n t of stable

indiv idual- difference v ar iance b ecause they are i n f lu en ced by in-

teract ional and contextual factors (Cairns & Green, 1979). A fuller

pic ture of the ex ten t of s imi lar i ty in paren t ing should cons is t of a

comprehens iv e mul t imethod approach us ing ob serv er ra t ings , ob-

servation codings, and self-reports.

A final l imitat ion of the data set l ies in the type of analyses

reported. This meta -ana lysis was l imited to studies that reportedcorrelat ional or difference tests. That is not to say t ha t there are no

other approaches to addressing the quest ion of similari ty in child

rearing. As Alder an d Scher (1994) argued, growth-curve analyses

prov ide an a l t e rna t iv e method for captur ing b oth cons is t ency in

ab solu te v alues as wel l as indiv idual d i fferences . T o da te , this

approach ha s rare ly b een used in the s tudy of parent-child rela-

t ions (cf . v an den B oom & Hoeksma, 1 9 94). Anoth er analy t ic

approach to assessing cont inu i ty and change that occurred too

i n f r eq u en t ly to b e summar ized was t r end an alyses , a procedure tha t

allows for a more complex analyses of change us ing three or more

assessment t imes . Fo r example , McNal ly , E isenb erg, an d Harris

(1991) f o u n d a quadra t ic t r end in a t t i t udes toward con t rol , whereb y

after relative stability, there was an increase in views ab out control

dur ing midadolescence. Complex pa t t erns of n o n l i n e a r c h a n g e

have also been observed with Egyptian an d Kenyan caregiv ers .

Sigman an d Wachs (1 9 9 1 ) fou n d l inear, cubic, an d quadra t ic

t r ends in chi ld- rear ing b ehav iors when they ob served in t erac t ions

between toddlers aged 18 to 29 months and their caregivers.

Despit e these l imi ta t ions wi th the da ta se t , the fail-safe n com-

puta t ions g iv e us conf idence in the f i ndi ngs . T hose resu l t s hold

sev era l impor tan t theore t ica l and empir ica l ramif ica t ions for s tudy-

in g an d u n d e r s t a n d i n g th e s ignif icance of child rearing.

The Implications of Variability and Change

in Child Rearing

If researchers into socializat ion are to achieve a comprehens iv eunders tanding of chi ld rearing—its origins, nature, and effects—

then paren t s mus t be s tudied more in t ens iv e ly . Th e fu n d am en t a l

implicat ion from th is s tudy is the need to recognize both similari ty

and difference s wi th in paren t s . Recog ni t ion of th is idea has impl i-

cat ions fo r theory, th e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how child rearing impacts

o n t o g e n y , a n d f u ture empirical work.

Theoretical Implications

Much l ike th e re la t ions b e tween heredi ty an d e n v i r o n m e n t or

assimilat ion an d accommodat ion , a t t empts to dichotomize child

rearing as b eing e i ther s imi lar or different ar e clear ly misguided.

Given th at child rearing is an interpersonal act ivity that reflects the

c o n s t a n t interplay an d coordina t ion of goals between at least tw oindividuals (Maccoby, 1992), s u c h d y n a m i c s c a n n o t be reduced

into on e category or another . On the basis of this review, we would

refine the def in i t ion of paren t ing to b e an individual's adaptat ion to

three sets of variables: (a) his or her own contemporaneous in t ernal

cognit ive and affective factors, (b) a part icular child, and (c) the

context. Such an adaptat ion may rely on o ld solu t ions or elici t

nov el responses. These dynamics hav e n o t ye t b een adequate ly

recognized or explicated in the theoret ical conceptualizat ions

ab out paren t ing.

Perhaps th e most unequiv ocal theoretical implication of this




review is that i t has highlighted the context-dependent nature of

child rearing. The person-situation interaction in child rearing has

only sometimes been appreciated (e.g., Luster & Okagaki, 1993).

New models of parents must recognize the ecological contexts

within which parenting is embedded (e.g. , Belsky & Vondra,

1985) but must also allow for variability in response as a conse-

q u en ce of the in te rac t ion a l con tex t (Bron fen bren n er & Crou te r ,

1983; Lerner, 1989).Two recent theoretical conceptualizations of parenting that do

recognize the variable nature of parenting along with the in terac-

t ion context have been articulated by Grusec an d Good n ow (1994)

and Dix (1992). Both models focus on microprocesses associated

with parents' capacity fo r ad ju s tmen t an d change. In their recon-

ceptualization of the rela tions between parental discipline and

child internalization, Grusec and Goodnow explicit ly recognized

the variation inherent in parents' disciplinary responses to chil-

dren 's misdeeds. Although their analyses focused on between-

parent d iffe ren ces , man y of their points hold fo r within-parent

variability as well. For ins tance, they argued that parental disci-

plinary reactions reflect internal dispositions, perceptions of the

child (e.g., temperament, mood), and the type of child transgres-

sion (e.g., moral vs. social conventional) . These three factors are

l ikely to in teract different ly u n d er different conditions.

A second theoretical model of child rearing that embraces

parental varia tion in the form of momen t- to-momen t ad ju s tmen ts

has been proposed by Dix (1992). Centered around how emotions

provide an organ izin g f ramework fo r paren t in g , Dix argued that

parental emotion—and behavior—is activated by a complex rela-

t ion between goals , concerns, an d parental appraisals of on goin g

e v e n t s . Child rearing then represents the outcome of multiple

transactional processes—between paren ta l s oc ia l cogn i t ion , th e

child, and the context.

R e c e n t l y , Kuczynski an d Lollis (i n press) have articulated a

model of paren t in g tha t n ice ly cap tu res th e f luid n a tu re of child

rearing. They took issue with th e all-too-common unidirectionalmodel of parenting that views the parents as powerful and active,

an d the children as passive an d largely powerless. Ins tead, paren t-

in g is the outcome of a bidirectional process that involves in ter-

dependent power rela tionships as well as behavioral and cognitive

agency of both parent and child. Child rearing, according to

K u c z y n s k i an d Lollis, is a dynamic process that undergoes fre-

q u e n t a d j u s t m e n t as a con s eq u en ce of variables residing in the

parent, child, parent-child rela tion ship, or context. Viewin g par-

en t in g from such a perspective allows for a better appreciation for

how child-rearing similarities an d differences m ay coexist an d

comin gle .

The Relation of Child Outcomes to Child-Rearing

Variation and Change

To date, the trait approach to parenting has been the most

effective way to examine associations between parenting and child

outcome (Holden, 1997; Maccoby, 1992). However, such an ap-

proach does n ot i nv i te development-rela ted questions, n or does it

allow for bidirectionality or the fact tha t a child 's characteris tics

may affect or interact with a particular parent trait (Darling &

Stein berg, 1993; Lewis, 1981). Alt ho ug h trait views of paren ts

have served an important role in focu s in g a t ten t ion o n particular

characteristics o f paren ts an d es tablishing links between parental

behavior and child outcome, it is t ime to incorporate more refined

v iews of the nature of child rearing in to our models of parent-

child rela tionships. Greater clarif ication of the nature of child

rearing may result in new insights into how parenting is associated

with child outcomes.

Variability in parenting across time. Th e search fo r main

effects (or even in te ractions) of s table child-rearing characteris tics

with child outcomes is too limited. As Baumrind herself hasrecognized, "... parents who are highly effect ive at one stage in

the c hild 's life are not necessarily as effect ive at another; . . . sim-

ilar practices do not necessarily produce the same effects at suc-

cessive stages in child's life" (Baumrind, 1989, p. 189). Some

parents m ay thrive with infant caregiving tasks but are over-

whelmed when dealing with a defiant toddler. Other parents may

feel los t when rela ting to their pubescent child b ut may b e adept a t

providing guidance a few years later.

Empirical support for the suggestion that a paren t m ay f unc t i on

more or less effectively a t different developmental levels can be

inferred from some of the infant-attachment research. Although

maternal sensitivity during the first 6 months of a child's life has

repeatedly been shown to be associated with a secure a t tachment

at 12 m o n t h s of age, five different s tu dies have been u n s u cces s fu l

at finding differences dur ing the second half of the first year

between the mothers of infants who developed an insecure attach-

m e n t from mothers of fu tu re -s ecu re infants (see review by Isabella,

1995). There are several explanations for this finding (e.g., mater-

n al s en s i t iv i ty may be most influent ial early in on togen y; i t may be

more difficult to make valid assessments of sensitivity in the

second half of the first year), but it is possible that mothers of

fu t u r e - in secu r e in fan t s were able to parent more effect ively d u rin g

that later time period.

Another implication for children's outcomes that stems from

this review is that parents' capacity fo r chan ge over t ime migh t

rela te to the qu ality of their parent-child rela tionship. Parents who

are able to modify their views and interests, as well as adjust theirchild rearing to better match their children's needs, may be re-

warded with better communication, more influence, and a closer

rela tionship with their offspring.

Variability in parenting across children. Variability in paren-

tal effectiveness may also be at work across siblings. For a variety

of reasons, ranging from life circumstances such as divorce to

child characteristics (e.g., gender, temperament, or wantedness), a

parent may feel closer an d more effect ive with o n e child than

another. One ramification from this observation is that it is likely

tha t parents do not have a blan k e t effect on all of their children. As

behavioral gene ticis ts have argued, if researchers are to un ders tand

how social developmen t affects children, then m uch more a t tention

needs to be devoted to within-family, nonshared environment (e.g.,

Plomin, 1994).The most important place to observe these nonshared differ-

ences lies in ch i ld ren ' s u n d ers tan d in g of, and reac t ion s to , differ-

ential parental treatment. Indeed, it may be that children's percep-

t ions of paren ta l b ehav ior— not th e behavior itself—represents th e

active in gred ien t of child rearing. Inve stigations by D u n n and her

colleagues invo lving siblings provide some hints of w h a t a revised

emphasis on variation in parents' behavior may reveal. Parents

who manifest different ial behavior to their children, at leas t as

perceived by the children, promote greater s ibling hostili ty (Boer

& Dunn, 1992). In a similar vein, K o w a l an d Kramer (1997)




recently reported tha t children who perceived their parents ' differ-

en t ia l sibling treatment to be fair had more positive appraisals of

their s ibling rela tionships t h a n other children.

Variability in parenting across situations. This review raises

q u es t ion s abou t the u n d er ly in g reasons for and constraints on

variations in child-rearing across s ituations. This is most conspic-

u o u s wit h the limited unders tanding or parental sensit ivity (or

responsivity). Sen s i t iv i ty is a com plex con s t ru c t bu t is common lydefined as "con t in gen t , appropriate [italics added], and consistent

responses to an i n f a n t ' s signals or needs" (Lamb & Easterbrooks,

1981, p. 127). Surpris ingly , the co ntext-specific n ature of "appro-

priate" has not been carefully examined. Lit t le is known about why

some parents are able to navigate through successive and some-

t imes challenging contexts (such as the supermarket, Holden,

1983) with deftness and proprie ty, whereas other parents may lose

tempers or control. Furthermore, as De Wolff and van I jzendoorn

(1997) pointed out, a more contextualized view of sensit ivity is

n eed ed to a c c o u n t fo r paren t- in fan t a t tachmen t pa t te rn s in home

en viron men ts characterized by stress an d instability in a t tachmen t

rela tionships.

A conce pt closely rela ted to se nsit ivity is f lexibility. Variabilityin parental behavior, an expression of flexibility, is t h o u g h t by

some inve stigators to be central for effective parenting. As Mischel

(1984) recognized some time ago, greater consis tency in behavior

is displayed by individuals who are func t ion ing poorly. Along

those l in es , when d is cu s s in g d ys fu n c t ion a l mothers , Wahler an d

D u m a s (1989) observed "Mothers who attend to the complex

patterns of child-care s timuli will a lso perform a se t of highly

relevant parenting behaviors . . . mothers who are deficient in ob-

servational processes are prone to develop response-response link-

ages that permit s t imuli in one se t t ing to influence her [s ic]

behavior in o the r s e t t in gs . This is tan tamou n t to s ay in g tha t

a t t en t ion- def ic i t mothers a re marked by trait-like behavior pat-

terns [italics added].. ." (p. 123). Similarly, Grusec and Good-now (1994) proposed tha t flexibility in discipline may be more

impor tan t in terms of teaching the child than the particular method

u s ed : "... parents [must] be flexible in their disciplinary reac-

t ions , match in g them to the child's perceptions of and reactions to

th e con f l ic t s i tu a t ion : Effect ive paren t in g in volves s en s i t iv i ty to

th e child 's emotional s ta te and cognitions" (p. 17). Several other

researchers have also called for the s tu d y of flexibility in parents

(H of f m an, 1970) or have recog nized how effect ive paren ts mu s t be

flexible to balance child-like and adult perceptions (Maccoby,

1992), competing needs (Dix, 1992), or the dialectical process of

resolving confl ic t ing considerations (Holden & Ritchie, 1988).

Thus, i t appears tha t a key parenting characteris tic that has gone

ignored empirically is the ability to exhibit f lexibility.

Parental flexibility is not s yn on ymou s with in con s is ten t d is c i-

pl ine (e .g., Patte rson, 1982). Rather, like se nsit ivity, effective u se

of the principle of consis tency may necessita te taking in to account

th e immediate s ituational and child factors , such as in tentionality

an d recent in teractional his tory. The implication of Grusec and

Good n ow's (1994) analysis is that the child 's perception of paren-

ta l equity and jus tif ication rather than consis tency per se is what is

most important. P resumab ly, children of f lexible parents feel more

respected as individu als , develop better re la tionships with their

paren t s , and acquire a greater sense of self-efficacy than children

of parents who are u n j u s t ly rigid or easily manipulated.

Empirical Investigations Into Parental Variationan d Change

This new emphasis on parental varia tion and change must be

supported with empirical evidence into the types, sources, and

consequences of parental varia tion and change. Some of this work

has begu n , a s was in d ica ted in the in t rod u c t ion . However , a n ew

conceptualization invites many other novel research questions. Inaddition to the research suggestions mentioned above, we ident ify

three areas as most pressing: inquiries in to the nature of parental

variation, systematic research in to multiple levels of parental vari-

ables , and investigations in to the psychological processes associ-

ated with variation and change.

The nature of parental variation. Systematic analyses in to

parental varia tion and change across t ime, children, and s ituations

are needed to begin to reveal the nature of the shift ing landscape.

J us t as substantial differences in the quality of marital re la tions are

n ow widely recognized to occur over rela tively short periods of

t ime (e .g. , Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Cowan & Cowan, 1992),

variation and change in parenting also warrant examin ation . As

this review has revealed, there is substantially more informationabout how child rearing changes over t ime than across children or

situations. Consequently, there is a greater need for investigations

in to the la t ter two domains. For example, research is needed to

address why parents in teract different ly with different children.

Similarly, much of parents ' s ituationally induced behavioral vari-

ation is not random; rather we believe that it is lawful and that

lawfulness deserves s tudy.

Empirical work should s trive to reveal th e ways in which

parents modify their behavior in response to the characteristics of

situations. For example, Valsiner (1984) took a Vygotskian ap-

proach when he proposed that within particular contexts , parents

hav e three different zones of child behavior: those that are encour-

aged, discouraged, and tolerated. In an approach in tended to ac-

count for the parent-situation in te rac t ion be tween paren ts an dsetting, Miller, Shim, an d Holden (1999) adopted a Gibsonian

perspective of the environment. They used observational data from

th e home, park, and laboratory to show how sett ings provided

different afford an ces an d d eman d s on parent-child in teractions.

Multilevel investigations. Empirical work is also needed to

explicate th e in terplay of con t in u i ty , var iabi l ity , an d chan ge at

each of the f ive levels of variables dis tinguished above (trait ,

value, a t t i tude, behavioral in tention, and behavior). To what extent

are paren t in g t ra i t s main ta in ed over t ime , different offspring, an d

situations? Are child-rearing values maintained over t ime, or do

m a n y parents experience "value s tre tching" as the sociologis t

Rodman suggested (cited in Goodnow, 1997). Despite th e popu -

larity of s tudying child-rearing at t i tudes, scant a t tention has been

devoted to parental attitude change (Holden, 1995). At the level of

behavioral in tentions, several s tudies have shown that parents

believe they do indeed modify their actions because of the specif-

ics of the situations (e .g. , Catron & Masters, 1993; Dix & R e i n -

hold, 1991; Grusec & Kuczynski , 1980). Finally, as this review has

shown, there is ample evidence that observed child-rearing behav-

ior can be modified. However, what is less clear is the systematic

determinants of those modifications.

The psychological processes. Far more important than s imply

categorizing whether variation and change occur is the need to

u n d ers tan d the psychological processes at work. To date there is




some work in this area. The change agent that has been best

documented is the child developmental level. As reviewed in the

introduction, there is already some evidence for how parenting

changes as a consequence of a child's development or as a con-

sequence of family structural changes, such as divorce (Hether-

ington & Stanley-Hagan, 1995). However, other influences on

change in child rearing have received scant research attention.

Some of these sources include learning from experiences with

infants and children (Holden, 1988), changing practices because of

a child's behavioral response (Holden, Thompson, Zambarano, &

Marshall, 1997), being influenced by a spouse (McHale, 1995),

reading new child-rearing information (Clarke-Stewart, 1978), or

profiting from a parent education program (Wierson & Forehand,

1994).

The most basic research initiative needed involves a focus on

how parenting is organized and what influences the coherence of

the individual's organization at given moments. Mischel and Sho-

da's (1995) theory of personality provides a u s e f u l model. They

assumed that personality is composed not of isolated tendencies

but of a psychologically meaningful organization of relations

among cognitions and affec t . The researcher's task is to explicate

or map the particular domain of interest. A key feature is identi-

fication of the conditional probabilities associated with an individ-

ual's behavior. In this construct, the momentary activation among

cognitions and affect composes the individual's personality state.

In the terms of their model, child rearing reflects the dynamic

interplay of the parent's personality system and the specific

cognitive-affective processes activated at the current moment—in

response to the child and immediate context.

Research into parenting would also profit by explicating how

cognitions and affect interact to contribute to parental behavior. On

the one hand, it is likely that parenting, like children's behavior,

changes over time to become more hierarchical, differentiated, and

complex (e.g., Sroufe & Jacobvitz, 1989). However, it is also

possible that there are ways in which parental behavior is con-strained by earlier experiences or adaptations, such as internal

representations of attachment relationships (e.g., Main et al.,

1985). Other examples of potential constraints on variation or

change include ethnotheories (Harkness & Super, 1995), deeply

held values and strong convictions (Abelson, 1988), personality

dispositions and orientations toward child-rearing efficacy (Bu-

gental et al., 1990), and emotional or mental health problems, such

as depression (Kochanska et al., 1989).

Conclusion

Acceptance of the assertion that child rearing is simultaneously

enduring and different implies a fundamental change in the way

that parents are thought of and studied. Thus, in addition to

recognition of the enduring characteristics of parents, the question

of paramount importance is under what conditions, in what ways,

to what extent, and why does child rearing vary or change? In turn,

how do children perceive that variation and change? It is likely that

only with such information will we be able to ful ly understand

parental behavior and assess its influence on children. Such infor-

mation will also lead to better education programs for parents as

well as more effective treatment for those who are experiencing

problems in raising their children. It is time to bid farewell to

simple—however parsimonious—views of child rearing.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in

the meta-analysis.

Abelman, R. (1985). Stylesof parental disciplinary practices as a mediator

of children's learning from prosocial television portrayals. Child Study

Journal, 15 , 131-146.

Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43 , 267-275.Ainsworth, M. S. D., Bell , S. M. V., & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual

differences in strange situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R.

Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations (pp. 17-52). Ne w

York: Academic.

Alder, A. G., & Scher, S. J. (1994). Using growth curve analysisto assess

personality change an d stability in adulthood. In T. F. Heathe rton & J. L.

Weinberger (Eds.), Ca n personality change? (pp. 149-173). Washing-

ton, DC : American Psycholog ical Association.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B . (1991). Parental divorce and the well being of

children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110,26-46.

Anderson, E. R., Hetherington, E. M., Reiss, D., & Howe, G. (1994).

Parents ' nonshared treatment of siblings and the development of social

competence during adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 303-

320.

Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers' interac-

tions with normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who affects wh o m?

Developmental Psychology, 22 , 604-609.

Baldwin, A. L. (1946). Differences in parent behavior toward three- and

nine-year-old children. Journal of Personality, 15, 143-165.

Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., & Breese, F. (1945). Patterns of parent

behavior. Psychological Monographs, 58 (3, Serial No . 268).

*Bates, J. E., Olson, S. L., Pettit, G. S., & Bayles, K. (1982). Dimensions

of individuality in the mother-infant relationship at six months of age.

Child Development, 53 , 446-461.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmen-

tal Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, Pt . 2).

Baumrind, D. (1989). The permanence of change and the impermanence of

stability. Human Development, 32 , 187-195.

*Beckwith, L., & Cohen, S. E. (1989). Maternal responsiveness withpreterm infants and later competency. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &

M. H. Bornstein (Vol. Ed.), New directions for child development.

No. 43. Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics and consequences

(pp. 75-87). Sa n Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

*Beckwith, L., Rodning, C., & Cohen, S. (1992). Preterm children at early

adolescence and continuity and discontinuity in maternal responsiveness

from infancy. Child Development, 63, 1198-1208.

Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies

of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81-95.

Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using exper-

imental o r brief lon gitudin al approaches to socialization. Developmental

Psychology, 22 , 595-603.

*Belsky, J. (1979). Mothe r-father-infant interaction: A naturalistic obser-

vational study. Developmental Psychology, 15, 601-607.

*Belsky, J. (1980). Mother-infant interaction at home and in the laboratory:A comparative study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137, 37-47.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. ChildDevelopment, 55, 83-96.

*Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania infant

an d family development project, I: Stability and change in mother-infant

and father-infant interaction in a family setting at one, three , and nine

months. Child D evelopment, 55, 692-705.

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across th e

transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal

o f Marriage and the Family, 52, 5-19.

*Belsky, J., Taylor, D. G., & Rovine, M. (1984). Th e Pennsylvania infant




and family development project , II: The development of reciprocal

in t erac t ion in the mother- infan t dyad. Child Development, 55, 706-717.

Be lsky, J., & Vondra , J. (1985). Characterist ics, conse quen ces, an d deter-

m in an t s o f paren t ing . In L. L'Abate (Ed.), The handbook of family

psychology and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 523-556). Homewood, IL: Dorsey .

B e r n , D. J., & Allen , A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of

the t ime: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior.

Psychological Review, 81, 506-520.

B e r n , D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of

the t ime: Assessing the personali ty of si tuations. Psychological Re-

view, 85, 485-501.

B e n o i t , D., & Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of

a t t ach m e n t across three generations. Child Development, 65, 1444-

1456.

B i r i n g e n , Z., Emde, R. N., Campos, J. J., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1995).

Affective reorganiza t ion in the infan t , th e mother , and the dyad: Th e role

of uprig ht locomotion an d i ts t iming. Child Development, 66, 499-514.

B o e r , F., & D u n n , J. (1992). Sibling relationships: Developmental and

clinical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Bohman, T. , Hazen , N ., B u r t o n , H., & De Santis, R. (1991, April) . Change

in parental attitudes toward child-rearing over time. Paper presented at

th e bien nial mee ting of the Society for Research in Child Deve lopment,

Seattle, WA.Bornste in , M. H. (Ed.). (1991). Cultural approaches to parenting. Hills-

dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bomstein, M. H. (Ed.). (1995). Paren t ing infan ts . In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of parenting: Vol. I. Children and parenting (pp. 3—39).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Bornste in , M. H., & Tamis-LeManda, C. S. (1990). Activit ies and inter-

ac t ions of mothers an d their f irstborn infan ts in the first six m o n t h s of

life: Covariation, stabili ty, con tin uity , correspondence , an d prediction.


B o r n s t e i n , M. H., Vibbert , M., Tal, J., & O'Donnel l , D. (1992). Toddler

language and p lay in the second year: Stabi l i ty , covaria t ion and inf lu-

e n c e s of paren t ing . First Language, 12, 323-338.

*Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & B u r k e , M . (1987). Chi ld t emperaments ,

maternal differen t ia l behavior, an d sibling relat ionships. Developmental

Psychology, 23, 354-362.B r o d y , G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1994). Contributions of

family relat ionships and child temperamen ts to longitu dina l variat ions in

s ibling re la t ionship qual i ty an d sibling relat ionship styles. Journal of

Family Psychology, 8, 274-286.

Brody, S. (1956). Patterns of mothering: Maternal influence during in-

fancy. New York: International Universit ies.

B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , U . (1979). The ecology of human development: Experi-

ments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983). The evolu t ion of environ-

m e n t a l models in developmental research. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.)

& W . Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1 . History,

theory, and methods (4th ed., pp. 357-414). New York: Wiley.

*Bryan t , B. K ., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates and dimensions of

prosocial behavior: A study of female siblings with thei r mothers . Child

Development, 51, 529-544.

B u g e n t a l , D. B., Blue, J., & Lewis, J. (1990). Caregiver beliefs and

dysphoric affect directed to difficult chi ldren . Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 26, 631-638.

B u g e n t a l , D. B ., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th

ed., pp. 389-462). New York: Wiley.

B u g e n t a l, D . B ., & Shen nu m, W. A. (1984). "Difficult" children as elicitors

an d targets of adul t communica t ion pa t t erns: An attributional-behavioral

t r an s ac t io n a l analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 49 (1, Serial No. 205).

B u h r m e s t e r , D., Camparo, L., Christensen, A., Gonzalez, L. S., & H i n -

shaw, S. P. (1992). Mothers an d fathers interacting in dyads an d triads

with normal and hyperactive sons. Developmental Psychology, 28, 500-

509.

*Cain, R., Rabinovich, B., Pedersen , F., Zaslow, M., & Su walsk y, J. (1985,

A u g u s t ) . Mother-infant interaction in two social contexts at two ages.

Poster presented at the a n n u a l m e e t i n g of the American Psychological

Association, Los Angeles, CA.Cairns, R. B. (1979). Social development: The origins and plasticity of

interchanges. San Francisco: Freeman.

Cairns, R. B ., & Green, J. (1979). How to assess personali ty and social

patterns: Observations or ratings? In R. B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of

social interactions (pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). HOME observation for m easurem ent

of the environment. Litt le Rock, AR : Universi ty of Arkansas.

Campos, J. J., Kermo nian, R., & Zum bahlen , M. R. (1992). Socioemotional

transformations in the family system following infant crawling onset. In

W. Damon (Series Ed.), & N. Eisenberg & R. Fabes (Vol. Eds.), Ne w

directions for child development: No. 55. Emotion and its regulation in

early development (pp. 25-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Catron, T. R. , & Masters, J. C. (1993). Mothers' and children's concep-

tual iza tions of corporal pun ishmen t . Child Development, 64, 1815-1828.

*Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and theiry o u n g children: Characterist ics an d consequences. Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (153, Serial No. 6-7).

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1978). Popular primers for parents. American

Psychologist, 33, 359-369.

*Clarke-Stewart, K. A. , & Hevey, C. M. (1981). Longitudinal relat ions in

repeated observations of mother-child interaction from 1 to 2 1/2 years.

Developmental Psychology, 17 , 127-145.

Clifford, E. (1959). Discipline in the home: A controlled observational

s tudy of parental practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 95 , 45-82.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

(Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.

*Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Differential paren t ing and change

in sibling differences in del inquency. Journal of Family Psychology, 8,

287-302.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L.,

& Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hard-

ship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63,

526-541.

Cowan , C. P., & Cowan , P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The

big life change for couples. Ne w York: Basic Books.

Crandall, V. J., & Preston , A. (1955). Pat t erns and levels of materna l

behavior. Child Development, 26, 267-277.

*Crockenberg, S., & Li tman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in

2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of child compliance, noncompliance,

and self-assert ion. Developmental Psychology, 26, 961-971.

*Crockenberg , S. B . , & McCIuske y, K. (1986). Change in maternal be-

havior dur ing th e baby 's first y e a r of life. Child Development, 57 ,

746-753.

Crouter , A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M ., & Perry-Jenkins, M .(1990). Paren ta l mon i toring and perceptions of children's school perfor-

mance and conduct in dual- and single-earner families. Developmental

Psychology, 26, 649-657.

Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (1993). Temporal rhythms in family life:

Seasonal variat ion in the rela t ion between paren ta l work an d family

processes. Developmental Psychology, 29, 198-205.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The

impact of family dispute and resolution. Ne w York: Guilford Press.

*Daniels, D., D u n n , J., Furstenberg , F., & Plomin, R. (1985). E n v i r o n m e n -

ta l differences within th e family an d adjustment di f ference s wi th in pai rs

of adolescent siblings. Child D evelopment, 56, 764-774.




Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An inte-

grative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113 , 487-496.

*David, A ., & Holden, R. H. (1970). Consistency of maternal attitudes and

personality from pregnancy to eight months following childbirth. De-

velopmental Psychology, 2, 364-366.

De Wolff, M. S., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity an d attach-

ment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment.

ChildDevelopment, 68,

571-591.DiLalla, L. F., & Bishop, E. G. (1996). Differential maternal treatment of

infan t twins: Effects on infant behavior. Behavior Genetics, 26 , 535-

542.

Dix, T. (1991). Th e affective organization of parenting: Adaptive an d

maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3-25.

Dix, T. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathic goals in the

regulation of responsive parenting. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-

DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: Th e psycho-

logical consequences for children (pp. 319-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-

b a u m .

Dix, T., & Reinhold, D. P. (1991). Chronic and temporary influences on

mothers' attributions fo r children's disobedience. Merrill-Palmer Quar-

terly, 37, 251-271.

Dix, T., Ruble, D. N. , & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers' implicit

theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attributionprocess. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391.

* D u n n , J. F. (1977). Patterns of early interaction: Continuities and conse-

quences. In Schaffer, H. R. (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction

(pp. 457-474). London: Academic Press.

Dunn, J. F. (1992). Siblings an d development. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 1, 6-9.

* D u n n , J. F., & Kendrick, C. (1980). The arrival of a sibling: Changes in

patterns of interaction between mother and first-born child. Journal of

Child Psychology an d Psychiatry, 21, 119-132.

* D u n n , J. F., & Plomin, R. (1986). Determinants of maternal behavior

toward 3-year-old siblings. British Journal of Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 4, 127-137.

* D u n n , J. F., Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1986). Consistency and change in

mothers ' behavior toward young siblings. Child Development, 57, 348-

356.*Dunn, J. F., Plomin, R., & Nettles, M. (1985). Consistency of mothers'

behavior toward infant siblings. Developmental Psychology, 21 , 1188-

1195.

*Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1985, March). When mommy an d

daddy say no: A longitudinal study of toddler compliance. Poster pre-

sen ted a t the biennial meeting of the Society fo r Research in Child

Development, Toronto, Canada.

*Eisenberg, N. , Wolchik, S., Hernandez, R. , & Pasternack, J. (1985).

Paternal socialization of young children's play: A short-term longitudi-

n al study. Child Development, 56 , 1506-1513.

Ellison, C. G., Bartowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996). Conservative

Protestantism and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social

Forces, 74, 1003-1028.

Emmerich, W. (1964). Continuity and stability in early social development.

Child Development, 35, 311-332.

Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the

people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 37, 1097-1282.

Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psycho-

logical research. American Psychologist, 35, 790-806.

Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (1987). Siblings without rivalry. Ne w York:

A v o n .

*Fagot, B., & Gauvain, M. (1997). Mother-child problem solving: Conti-

n u i t y through th e early childhood years. Developmental Psychology, 33 ,480-488.

Fagot, B. I., & K av an au g h , K. (1993). Parenting during the second year:

Effects of children's age, sex, an d attachment classification. Child De -

velopment, 64, 258-271.

*Fiese, B. H. (1990). Playful relationships: A contextual analysis of

mother-toddler interactions an d symbolic play. Child Development, 61 ,

1648-1656.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of

single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59-

74.Fiske, A. P. (1992). Th e four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for

a unif ied theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.

*Frankel, D., Arbel, T., & Mendrovsky, L. (1980). Stability and distinc-

tiveness in interaction of mother an d neonate. Psychological Reports, 47 ,

1103-1108.

Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consis-

t ency: Properties of persons, situations, an d behaviors. Journal of Per-

sonality an d Social Psychology, 60, 773-794.

Goodman, S. H., & Brumley, H. E. (1990). Schizophrenic and depressed

mothers: Relational deficits in parenting. Child Development, 26 , 31-39.

Goodnow, J. J. (1995). Parents' knowledge and expectations. In M. H.

Bornste in (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social

conditions of parenting (pp. 305-332). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodnow, J. J. (1997). Parenting and the transmission and internalization

of values: From social-cultural perspective to within-family analyses. InJ. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting an d children's internal-

ization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 333-361).

Ne w York: Wiley.

Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to

parents: Th e nature, sources, and consequences of parents' ideas. Hill-

sdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Gralinski, H. H., & Kopp, C. B. (1993). Everyday rules for behavior:

Mothers' requests to young children. Developmental Psychology, 29 ,

573-584.

*Green, J. A., Gustafson, G. E., & West, M. J. (1980). Effects of infan t

development of mother-infant interactions. Child Development, 51,

199-207.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline

methods on the child's internalization of values: A reconceptualizationof current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30 , 4-19.

Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1980). Direction of effect in socialization:

A comparison of the parent vs. the child's behavior as determinants of

disciplinary techniques. Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-9.

Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (Eds.) (1997). Parenting an d children's

internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory. Ne w

York: Wiley.

*Haden, C . A., & Fivush, R. (1996). Contextual variation in maternal

conversa t ional styles. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 200-227.

*Hagan, S. M., Hollier, E. A., O'Conner, T. G. , & Eisenberg, M. (1992).

Parent-child relationships in nondivorced, divorced single-mother, an d

remarried families. In E. M. Hether ing ton & W . G. Clingempeel (Eds.),

Coping with marital transitions. Monographs of the Society for Research

in Child Development, 57, (2-3, Serial No. 227).

Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1995). Parental ethnotheories. In M. H. (Ed.),Handbook of of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (pp.

211-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Hart, B ., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning

chi ldren: Persisting differences in family-child interactions observed in

n a t u r a l home environments. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1096-

1105.

*Hatfield, J. S., Ferguson, L. R., & Alpert , R. (1967). Mother-child

interaction and the socialization process. Child Development, 38, 365-

414.

Hattick, B. W ., & Stowell, M. (1936). The relation of parental over-

at t en t iveness to children's work habits an d social adjustments in kinder-




garten and the first six grades of school. Journal of Educational Re-

search, 30, 169-176.

Hedges, L. V. , & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.

Orlando, FL : Academic Press .

*Heinicke, C. M, Diskin , S. D., Ramsey-Klee, D. M., & Given, K. (1983).

Pre-bir th paren t charac ter is t ics an d family development in the f irs t year

of l ife. Child Development, 54, 194-208.

Hetherington, E. M ., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1995). Parenting in di-

vorced an d remarr ied families. In M. H. Bornste in (Ed.), Handbook of

parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 233-

254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hock, E., & Lindamood, E. (1981). Continuity of child-rearing at t i tudes in

mothers of young ch i ldren . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 305-

306.

Hock, E., & DeMeis, D. K. (1990). Depression in mothers of infants: The

ro le of maternal employment . Developmental Psychology, 26 , 285-291.

Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother-child conversation in differen t social

c lasses and communica t ive se t t ings. Child Development, 62, 782-796.

Hoffman, L. W. (1991). The influence of the family environment on

personali ty: Account ing fo r sib l ing di f ference s. Psychological Bulletin,

110, 187-203.

Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Conscience, perso nali ty , and socialization tech-

n iq u e s . Human Development, 13, 90-126.*Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conf l ic t : Mothers as t ac t ic ians in the

supermarket . Child Development, 54, 233-240.

H o ld e n , G. W. (1988). Adults' thinking about a child-rearing problem:

Effects of experience, parental status, and gender. Child Develop-

ment, 59, 1623-1632.

Holden, G. W. (1995). Parental at t i tudes toward childrearing. In M. H.

B o r n s t e in (Ed.) Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. The status an d social

conditions of parenting (pp. 359-392). M ah w ah , NJ: Erlbaum.

Holden , G. W. (1997). Parents and the dynamics of child rearing. B o u l d e r ,

C O: Westview Press.

H o ld e n , G. W., Coleman, S., & Schmidt , K. L. (1995). W hy 3-year-old

children get spanked: Parent and child determinants in a sample of

col lege-educated mothers . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 431-452.

Holden , G. W., & Edwards, J. (1989). Parental at t i tude s toward child

rear ing: Ins t rume nts , issues, an d impl ica t ions. Psychological Bulletin,106, 29-58.

H o ld e n , G. W., & Ritch ie, K. L. (1988). Ch ild rearing and the dialectics of

paren ta l in t e l l igence . In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Children's development within

socio-culturally structured environments (pp. 30-59). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord,

child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered

women. Child Development, 62, 311-327.

Holden , G. W., Stein , J., Harris, S., Ritchie, K . L., & Jouri les , E. N. (1998).

The paren t ing bel iefs and behaviors of ba t t ered women. In G. W.

Holden , R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital

violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 289-334). W a s h -

i n g t o n , DC: American Psychological Associa t ion .

Holden , G. W., Thompson, L., Zambarano, R. , & Marshall, L. (1997).

Child effects as a source of change in maternal a t t i t udes toward corporal

p u n i s h m e n t . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 481-490.

Isabella, R. (1993). Origins of at tachment: Maternal interactive behavior

across the first year. Child Development, 64, 605-621.

Isabella, R. A. (1995). The origins of infant-mother at tachment: Maternal

behavior an d infan t development . In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

.development (Vol . 10, pp. 57-81). Bris to l , PA: Kingsley .

Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins

of infan t -mother a t t achment : A rep l ica t ion s tudy. Child Develop-

ment, 62, 373-384.

Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT 1.10: Software for the meta-analytic review

of research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Kagan, J . (1971) . Change and continuity in infancy. Ne w York: W i l e y .

K ag an , J. , & Moss, H. A. (1962). Birth to maturity: A study in psycholog-

ical development. Ne w York: Wiley .

Kandel, D. B ., & W u , P . (1995). Disentangling mother-child effec ts in the

d e v e lo p m e n t of antisocial behavior. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and

punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 106-123). New York: Cam-

bridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.

Kaye, K., & Fogel, A. (1980). The temporal structure of face-to-face

co m m u n ica t io n between mothers an d inf ant s . Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 16, 454-464.

K az d in , A. E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in chi ldren: Curre n t

s t a t u s an d f uture directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187-203.

Kendr ick, C., & Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling quarrels and maternal responses.

Developmental Psychology, 19, 62-70.

Koch, D. A., Chandler, M. J., Harder, D. W ., & Paget, K. F. (1982).

Paren ta l defense sty le and child competence: A match-mismatch h y-

pothesis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 11-21.

Kochanska, G. (1990). Maternal beliefs as long-term predictors of mother-

child interaction and report . Child Development, 61, 1934-1943.

Kochanska, G. , K u c z y n s k i , L., & Maguire, M. (1989). Impact of diagnosed

depression an d self-reported mood on mothers' control strategies: A

lo n g i t u d in a l s tudy. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 493-511.

K o h n , M. L. (1979). Th e effec ts of social class on paren ta l values an dpractices. In D. Reiss & H. Hoffman (Eds.), Th e American family: Dying

or developing (pp. 45-68). N e w Y o rk : P le n u m .

Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997) , Chi ldren 's unders tanding o f paren ta l

differential treatment. Child Development, 68, 113-126.

K r am p e n , G. (1989). Perceived childrearing practices and the development

of locus of con t ro l in ear ly adolescence. International Journal of Be-

havioral Development, 1 2, 177-193.

K u cz y n s k i , L. (1984). Socialization goals an d mother-chi ld in t erac t ion:

Strategies fo r long- term an d shor t -t erm compl iance. Developmental Psy-

chology, 20, 1061-1073.

K u cz y n s k i , L., & Lollis, S. (in press). Four foundations for a dynamic

model of p a r e n t i n g . In J. R. M. Gerris (Ed.), Dynamics of parenting.

Hillsdale, N J: E r l b a u m .

K u cz y n s k i , L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K . (1997). Value socialization in a

bidirect ional con text . In J. E. Grusec & L. K u c z y n s k i (Eds.), Parentingand children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary

theory (pp. 23-52). New York: Wiley .

Lafore, G. G. (1945). Practices of parents in dealing with preschool

children. Child Development Monographs, 31. New York: Teacher's

Col lege, Colum bia Un iversi ty .

*Lamb, M . (1977). Father-infant an d mother- infan t in t erac t ion in the first

year of l ife. Child Development, 48, 167-181.

Lamb, M. E., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1981). Individual differences in

paren ta l sen si t iv i ty : Orig ins , componen ts , and conse quen ces. In M. E.

Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical an d

theoretical considerations (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lerner, R. M. (1989). Developmental contextualism and the life-span view

of person-con text in t erac t ion . In M. H. B ornste in & J. S. Brun er (Eds.),

Interaction in human development (pp. 217-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-

b a u m .

Levy, D. M. (1931) . Maternal over-pro tec t ion an d re jec t ion . Journal of

Nervous and Mental Diseases, 73, 65-77.

Levy, D. M. (1943). Maternal overprotection. New York: Columbia Uni-

vers i ty .

Lewis, C. C. (1981). The effec ts of parenta l f irm control: A reinterpretat ion

of th e f indings. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 547-563.

*Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M., Fracasso, M ., Scholmerich , A., & Larson, C.

(1997). Playfu l in t erac t ion and the an teceden ts of at tachment : A longi-

tudinal study of Cent ra l American an d Euro-American mothers an d

infan ts . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 24-47.

*Leyendecker, B ., Lamb, M ., Scholmerich, A., & Fricke, D. M. (1997).




Contexts as moderators of observed interactions: A study of Costa Rican

mothers and infants from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Inter-

national Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 15-34.

Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of

reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Luster, R., & Okagaki, L. (Eds.) (1993). Parenting: An ecological per-

spective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyt ton , H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differential socialization of

boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.

*Lyt ton , H ., Watts, D., & D u n n , B . E . (1986). Stability an d predictabili ty

of cognit ive and social characteristics from age 2 to age 9. Genetic,

Social and General Psychology Monographs, 112, 363-398.

Lytton, H., Watts, D., & D u n n , B. E. (1988). Cont inu i ty and change in

child characterist ics and maternal practices betwee n ages 2 and 9: An

analys is of in terview responses. Child Study Journal, 18, 1-15.

*Lytton, H., & Zwirner, W . (1975). C ompliance and i ts controlling st imuli

observed in a n a t u r a l set t ing. Developmental Psychology, 11 , 769-779.

Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child

Development, 55, 317-328.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). Th e role of paren t s in the socialization of children:

An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mart in , J. A. (1983). Socialization in the con text of the

family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M.Hether ing ton (Vol . Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Social-

ization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New

York: Wiley .

Magnusson, D., & Stat t in, H. (1998). Person-context interaction theories.

In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed.,

pp . 685-759). New York: Wiley.

Main , M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood,

an d adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Brethe rton &

E. Waters (Eds.), Growing poin t s of attachment theory and research.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (209,

Serial No. 1-2).

M ar t in , B . (1975). Parent-child relat ions. In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review

of child development research (Vol. 4, pp. 463-540). Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago.Martin, J. A. (1981). A longitudinal study of the consequences of early

mother-infant interaction: A microanalytic approach. Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development, 190 (46, Serial No. 3).

Mash, E. J., & Jo h n s t o n , C. (1990). Determinan ts of parenting stress:

Illustrat ions from families o f hyperactive children an d families of phys-

ically abused children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-

ogy, 19, 313-328.

*Mash, E., Johnston , C., & Kovitz , K. (1983). A comparison of the

mother-child interactions of physically abused and non-abused children

d u r in g play an d task si tuations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-

ogy, 12, 337-346.

McCall, R., Appelbaum, M . I., & Hogarty, P. S. (1973). Developmental

c h a n g e s in mental performance. Monographs of the Society for Research

in Child Development, 38 (3, Serial No. 150).

McCord, J. (1988). Parental aggressiveness and physical punis hme nt in

long-term perspective. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirpatrick,

& M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New direc-

tions in research (pp. 93-98). Beverly Hi l l s , CA: Sage.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V ., & Sigel, I. E. (1995). Parental beliefs. In

M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social

conditions of parenting (pp. 333-358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infan cy:

The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 31, 985-996.

*McHale, S. M., & Pawletko, T. M. (1992). Differential t rea tment of

siblings in two family contexts. Child Development, 63, 68-81.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families

and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional de-

velopment . Child Development, 61, 311-346.

*McNal ly , S., Eisenberg, S., & Harris, J. D. (1991). Consistency and

change in maternal child-rearing practices and values: A longitudinal

s t u d y . Child Development, 62, 190-198.

*Mekos, D., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1996). Sibling differences

in problem behavior and parental treatment in nondivorced and remar-

ried families. Child Development, 67 , 2148-2165.

Meldrum, B. (1982). Psychological factors in breast feeding versus bott le

feeding in the Third World. Bulletin of the British Psychological Soci-

ety, 35, 229-231.

*Merrill, B. (1946). A measurement of mother-child interaction. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 9, 37-49.

Metcalf, K ., & Gaier, E. L. (1987). Patterns of middle-class parenting and

adolescent underachievement. Adolescence, 22, 919-928.

Miller, P. C., Shim, J., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Immediate contextual

i n f lu e n ce s on maternal behaviour: Environmenta l af fordances and de-

m an d s . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 1-12.

M i n u c h i n , P. (1985). Families and individu al development: Provocations

from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289-302.

Mischel, W. (1977). On the f uture of personali ty measurement. American

Psychologist, 32, 246-254.Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognit ion and personali ty: Beyond

the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754.

Mischel, W. (1984). Convergences and challenges in the search for con-

sistency. American Psychologist, 39, 351-364.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of

personali ty: Reconcep tual izing situations, disposit ions, dynamics, and

invariance in personali ty structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-

268.

*Moore, G., Cohn, J., & Campbell, S. (1997). Mothers' affective behavior

with infant siblings: Stability an d change. Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 33, 856-860.

Morelli , G. A., Rogoff, B., Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. (1992).

Cu l t u r a l variation in infants' sleeping arrangements: Questions of inde-

p e n d e n c e . Developmental Psychology, 28, 604-613.

*Moss, H. A. (1967). Sex, age, an d state as determinan ts of mother- infan tin te ract ion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 19-36.

Moul ton , R. W., B u r n s t e i n , E., Liberty, P. G., & Altucher, N. (1966).

Patterning of parental affection and disciplinary dominance as a deter-

minan t of gui l t and sex typ ing . Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 4, 356-363.

*Murphey, D., & Alexander, S. (1991, March). Parents' beliefs and

parental behavior: A multi-method study. Paper presented at the biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seat t le, WA.

N u n n a l ly , J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

*O'Brien, M. & Nagle, K. J. (1987). Parents' speech to toddlers: The effect

of play context. Journal of Child Language, 14, 269-279.

*O'Dell, P. C. (1995, March). Maternal stability across contexts: An

observational exploration of settings and tasks. Poster presented at the

b ie n n ia l meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,

Indianapolis, IN.

*Olson, S., Bates , J., & B a y l e s , K . (1984). Mother-infant interaction an d

the developmen t of individual differences in children's cogni t ive com-

petence. Developmental Psychology, 20, 166-179.

Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relat ionships

change during puber ty? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47-66.

*Palmer, S. A. (1993). Mother-infant and father-infant interactions during

caregiving and play and their e f f e c t s on infant cognitive and emotional

development. Unpublished doctoral dissertat ion, University o f Califor-

nia, Riverside.

*Park, S., B e l s k y , J., Pu t n a m , S., & Crnic, K. (1997). Infan t emot ional i ty ,




parenting , and 3-year inhibition : Exploring stabi lity and lawful discon-

t inu i ty in a male sample. Developmental Psychology, 33 , 218-227.

Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness an d sub-

sequent child compliance. Child D evelopment, 56 , 1326-1334.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR : Castalia.

*Pease, D., & Melby, J. N. (1988, March). Stability of maternal and

paternal perceptions of parent behaviors. Paper presented at the biennial

meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Develop-

m en t , New Orleans, LA.

*Pettit, G. S., & Bates , J. E. (1984). Co nt inu i t y of individual differences in

the mother-infant relationship from six to thirteen months. Child Devel-

opment, 55 , 729-739.

*Pettit, G., & Bates , J. (1989). Family interaction patterns an d children's

behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychol-

o g y , 25 , 413-420.

*Pianta, R. C., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1989). Continuity and

discont inui ty in maternal sensitivity at 6, 24, and 42 months in a

high-risk sample. Child D evelopment, 60 , 481-487.

Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behav-

ioral genetics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Plomin, R. (1994). Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Devel-

opment, 3, 37-53.

*Poresky, R. H., & Hendrix, C. (1989, March). Parenting priorities:Stability, change, and impact on young children. Paper presented at the

biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,

Kansas City, MO .

*Pratt, M. N., Kerig, P. , Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Mothers

an d fathers teaching 3-year-olds: Au thoritative parenting and adult scaf-

folding o f y o ung children 's learning. Developmental Psychology, 24,

832-839.

*Pridham, K., Van Riper, M., Schroeder, M., & Thoyre, S. (1997, April).

Mothers' working models o f feeding: Ho w stable are they through the

first year? Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for

Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

Pulkkinen, L. (1982). Self control and continuity from childhood to ado-

lescence. P. B. Baltes & O. B. Brim (Eds.), L i f e span development and

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 63-105). Ne w York: Academic Press.Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Development and contextual analysis of con-

t inu i ty . Human Development, 32 , 204-209.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C. Z., & Chapman, M. (1983). Chil-

dren's prosocial dispositions and behavior. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),

& E. M. Hether ing ton (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.

Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 469-545). Ne w

York: Wiley & Sons.

Ragozin, A. S., Basham, R. B., Crnic, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., &

Robinson, N. M. (1982). Effects of maternal age on parenting role.

Developmental P sychology, 18, 627-634.

Raphael-Leff, L. (1986). Facilitators and regulators: Conscious and uncon-

scious processes in pregnancy an d early motherhood. British Journal of

Medical Psychology, 59, 43-55.

*Roberts, G. C., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1984). Continui ty an d change

in parents ' child-rearing practices. Child Development, 55, 586-597.Roggman, L. A., Langlois, J. H., Hubbs-Tait, L., & Rieser-Danner, L. A.

(1994). Infant day-care, attachment, and the "file drawer problem."


Rohner , R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental

acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.

Rollins, B . C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power, an d

control techniques in the socialization of children. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill,

F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family:

V o l . 1. Research-based theories (pp. 317-364). New York: Free Press.

Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. New-

bury Park, CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev.

ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*Rothbart, M. (1971). Birth order an d mother-child interaction in an

achievement s i tua t ion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

o g y , 17 , 113-120.

*Rothbaum, F. (1988). Maternal acceptance an d child functioning. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 34 , 163-184.

Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child

external iz ing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 116, 55-74.

Rutter, M. (1984). Continuities an d discont inui t ies in socioeconomic de -

velopment. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon (Eds.), Continuities and

discontinuities in development (pp. 41-68). Ne w York: Plenu m.

Sameroff, A. J., & Feil, L. A. (1985). Parental con cepts of deve lopmen t. In

I. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences

for children (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people m ake their own en viron -

ments: A theory of g e no t y p e — » e nv i r o nme nt effects. Child Develop-

ment, 54 , 424-435.

*Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1988). Fa r from home: An exper imenta l

evaluation of the mother-child home program in Bermuda. Child Devel-opment, 59, 531-543.

Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model fo r maternal behavior. Journalo f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 226-235.

*Schaefer, E. S., & Bayley, N. (1960). Consistency of maternal behavior

from infancy to preadolescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-

chology, 61 , 1-6.

Schaffer, H. R., & Liddell, C. (1984). Adult-child interaction u nde r dyadic

an d polyadic conditions. British Journal of Developmental Psychol-

o g y , 2, 33-42.

Schmidt, S. E., Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1996). Changes in parenting

practices an d adolescent drug abuse dur ing mult idimensional family

therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10 , 12-27.

*Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M., Leyendecker, B ., & Fracasso, M. P. (1997).

Mother-infant teaching interactions an d at tachment secur i ty in Euro-

American an d Central-American immigrant families. Infant Behavior &

Development, 20 , 165-174.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of childrearing.Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

*Sigel, I. E. (1982). The relation ship between parental distancin g strategies

an d the child's cognitive behavior. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigel (Eds.),

Families as learning environments for children (pp. 47-86). New York:

Ple num.

Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (Eds.). (1992).

Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children

( 2 n d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbau m.

*Sigman, M., N e u m a n n , C., Carter, E., & Cattle, D. (1988). Home inter-

actions and the development of Embu toddlers in Ke ny a . Child Devel-

opment, 59, 1251-1261.

Sigman, M., & Wachs, T. D. (1991). Struc ture , con t inui ty , and nu t r i t ional

correlates of caregiver behavior patterns in Ke ny a an d Egypt. In M. H.

Bornstein (Ed.), Cultural approaches to parenting (pp. 123-137). Hill-

sdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Smetana, J. G. (1989). Toddlers' social interactions in the context of moral

an d conven t ional t ransgressions in the home context . Developmental


Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting reconceptualized: A social domain anal-

ysis. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's

intemalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.

162-192). Ne w York: Wiley.

Spitz, R. A. (1965). The first year of l i f e : A psychoanalytic study of normaland deviant patterns of object relations. Ne w York: International Uni-

versities.Sroufe, L. A. , & Jacobvitz, D. (1989). Diverging path ways, developme ntal




transformations, multiple etiologies and the problem of cont inui ty in

development . Human Development, 32 , 196-203.

Sroufe, L. A., Jacobvitz, D., Mangelsdorf, S., DeAngelo, E., & Ward, M. J.

(1985). Generational boundary dissolution between mothers an d the ir

preschool children: A relationship systems approach. Child Develop-

ment, 56 , 317-325.

*Stattin, H., & Klackenberg, G. (1992). Discordant family relations in

intact families: Developmen tal te nden cies over 18 years. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 53, 940-956.

Steinberg, L. D. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty.

Developmental Psychology, 17, 833-840.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992).

Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative

parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child

Development, 63 , 1266-1281.

Stolz, L. M. (1967). Influences on parent behavior. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Symonds, P. (1938). A study of parental acceptance an d rejection. Amer-

ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 8, 679-688.

*Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Habituation an d

maternal encouragement of attention in infancy as predictors of toddler

language, play, and representational competence. Child Develop-

ment, 60 , 738-751.*Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1991). Individual variation,

correspondence, stability, and change in mother and toddler play. Infant

Behavior and Development, 14, 143-162.

*Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Chen, L. A., & Bornste in, M. H. (1998). Mothers'

knowledge about children's play and language development: Short-term

stability an d interrelations. Developmental Psychology, 34 , 115-124.

Taylor, M., & Kogan, K. L. (1973). Effects of birth of a sibling on

mother-child interac t ions . Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 4,

53-58.

*Teti, D. M., Sakin, J. W ., Kucera, E., Corns, K. M., & Eiden, R. D.

(1996). And baby makes four: Predictors of attachment security among

preschool-age firstborns du ring the tran sition to siblinghood. Child De-

velopment, 67 , 579-596.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. Ne w

York: Brunner-Mazel.Thompson, E., & Miller, P. C. (1997, April). Parental beliefs and use ofparental discipline: The role of religious affiliation. Poster presented at

the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,

Washing ton, DC .

Thompson, R. A. (1998). Early sociopersonality development. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th

ed., pp . 25-104). Ne w York: Wiley.

Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E., & Estes, D. (1982). Stability in infant-

mother attachment and its relationship to changing life circumstances in

an unselected middle-class sample. Child Development, 53, 144-148.

Trickett, P. K. , & Kuczynski , L. (1986). Children's misbehavior and

parental discipline in abusive and non-abusive families. DevelopmentalPsychology, 22, 166-176.

Valsiner, J. (1984). Construction of the zone or proximal development inadult-child jo int ac t ion: Th e socialization of meals. In B , Rogoff & J.

Wertsch (Eds.), Children's learning in the zone of proximal development(pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Valsiner, J. (1989). Human development and culture: The social nature of

personality and its study. Lexington, MA: Heath.

van de n Boom, D. C., & Hoeksma, J. B. (1994). Th e effect of infant

irritability on mother-infant interaction: A growth-curve analysis. De-

velopmental Psychology, 30 , 581-590.

Vaughn, B. , Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1979). Individual

differences in infant-mother attachment at twelve and eighteen months:

Stability and change in families under stress. Child Development, 50,971-975.

*Vuchinich, S., Angelelli, J., & Gatherum, A. (1996). Context an d devel-

opment in family problem solving with preadolescent children. Child

Development, 67 , 1276-1288.

*Vuchinich, S., Bank, L., & Patterson, G. (1992). Parenting, peers, and the

stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. Developmental


*Wachs, T. D. (1987). Short-term stability of aggregated an d nonaggre-

gated measures of parental behavior. Child Development, 58 , 796-797.

Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (1989). Attentional problems in dysfunc-

tional mother-child interactions: An interbehavioral model. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin, 105, 116-130.

*Ward, M. J., Vaughn, B . E., & Robb, M. D. (1988). Social-emotional

adaptation an d infant-mother attachment in siblings: Role of the motherin cross-sibling consistency. Child Development, 59, 643-651.

Waters, E. (1978). The reliability and stability of individual differences in

infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 49, 483-494.

Watson, G. (1934). A comparison of the effects of lax versus strict home

tra ining . Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 102-105.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent percep-

t ions an d family interactions. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 19 ,

302-312.

Whiting , J. W. M., & Child, I. L. (1953). Child training and personality:

A cross-cultural study. Ne w Haven, CT: Yale University.

Wierson, M., & Forehand, R. (1994). Parent behavioral training for child

noncompliance: Rationale, concepts, and effectiveness. Current Direc-

tions in Psychological Science, 3, 146-150.

Zahn-Waxier, C., & Chapman, M. (1982). Immediate antecedents of care-

takers' methods of discipline. Child Psychiatry and Human Develop-

ment, 12, 179-192.

*Zegiob, L., Arnold, S., & Forehand, R. (1975). An examination of

observer effects in parent-child interactions. Child Development, 46,

509-512.

*Ziv, Y., Gini, M., Guttmann, S., & Sagi, A. (1997, April). Dyadic

emotional availability and quality of infant-mother attachment: A three

point longitudinal study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the

Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

*Zussman, J. S. U. (1980). Situational determinants of parental behavior:

Effects of competing cognitive activity. Child Development, 51 , 792-

800.

Received J u n e 30, 1997

Revision received A u g u s t 4, 1998

Accepted A u g u s t 19, 1998

Article for Week 3

Documents

Transcript of Article for Week 3