Assertive Patterns

46
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] On: 16 January 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 932223628] Publisher Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Parenting Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653689 Effects of Preschool Parents' Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent Development Diana Baumrind a ; Robert E. Larzelere b ; Elizabeth B. Owens a a University of California, Berkeley b Oklahoma State University, Online publication date: 03 August 2010 To cite this Article Baumrind, Diana , Larzelere, Robert E. and Owens, Elizabeth B.(2010) 'Effects of Preschool Parents' Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent Development', Parenting, 10: 3, 157 — 201 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15295190903290790 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790 Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Transcript of Assertive Patterns

Page 1: Assertive Patterns

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]On: 16 January 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 932223628]Publisher Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

ParentingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653689

Effects of Preschool Parents' Power Assertive Patterns and Practices onAdolescent DevelopmentDiana Baumrinda; Robert E. Larzelereb; Elizabeth B. Owensa

a University of California, Berkeley b Oklahoma State University,

Online publication date: 03 August 2010

To cite this Article Baumrind, Diana , Larzelere, Robert E. and Owens, Elizabeth B.(2010) 'Effects of Preschool Parents'Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent Development', Parenting, 10: 3, 157 — 201To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15295190903290790URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2: Assertive Patterns

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 10: 157–201, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1529-5192 print / 1532-7922 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15295190903290790

HPAR1529-51921532-7922Parenting: Science and Practice, Vol. 10, No. 3, May 2010: pp. 0–0Parenting: Science and PracticeEffects of Preschool Parents’ Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent

DevelopmentAdolescent effects of parents’ preschool power assertionBaumrind, Larzelere, and OwensDiana Baumrind, Robert E. Larzelere, and Elizabeth B. Owens

SYNOPSIS

Objective. The authors investigated the effects of preschool patterns of parental authority onadolescent competence and emotional health and differentiated between confrontive and coer-cive power-assertive practices which accounted partially for differential long-term effects of thepreschool patterns. Design. Participants were 87 families initially studied when children werepreschool students, with outcomes assessed during early adolescence. Families were drawnfrom Baumrind’s Family Socialization and Developmental Competence longitudinal programof research. The authors used comprehensive observational and interview data to test hypothe-ses relating preschool power-assertive practices and patterns of parental authority to thechildren’s attributes as adolescents. Person-centered analyses contrasted adolescent attributesassociated with 7 preschool patterns of parental authority. The authors used variable-centeredanalyses to investigate the differential effects of 5 coercive power-assertive practices that theyhypothesized were authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental and 2 confrontive practices(behavioral control and normative spanking) that they hypothesized were neither authoritar-ian-distinctive nor detrimental. Results. Adolescents whose parents were classified as directive,democratic, or authoritative (grouped as balanced-committed) when these adolescents were pre-school students were competent and well-adjusted relative to adolescents whose parents wereclassified as authoritarian, permissive, or disengaged (grouped as imbalanced-uncommitted).Adolescents from authoritarian families were notably incompetent and maladjusted. Variable-centered analyses indicated verbal hostility and psychological control were the most detrimentalof the authoritarian-distinctive coercive power-assertive practices. Severe physical punishmentand arbitrary discipline were also authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental. Normative physi-cal punishment and confrontive discipline were neither. Confrontive discipline and maturitydemands contributed to authoritative parenting’s effectiveness, whereas normative physicalpunishment was neutral in its effects. Conclusions. The findings extend the consistently nega-tive outcomes of authoritarian parenting and positive outcomes of authoritative and authorita-tive-like parenting to 10-year outcomes that control for initial child differences. Differentialoutcomes can be partially attributed to the coercive practices of authoritarian parents versus theconfrontive practices of authoritative parents.

INTRODUCTION

In all societies a prime responsibility of parents is to socialize their children to conformsufficiently to normative standards of conduct to function successfully in their commu-nity. The short-range socialization objective of the exercise of parental authority is tomaintain order in the family, subordinated, however, to the encompassing responsibil-ity of parents to shepherd their child from a dependent infant into a self-determining,

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 3: Assertive Patterns

158 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

self-regulated adult with the competence and emotional health to achieve prosocialgoals and interact effectively with others. The aims of the present observational studyare (1) to investigate how preschool patterns of parental authority contribute to adoles-cents’ competence and emotional health and (2) to isolate and identify any differentialeffects on these adolescent outcomes of their parents’ use of coercive versus confrontivepower-assertive disciplinary practices when their children were preschool students.We sought to increase the causal relevance of our findings by controlling statisticallyfor suspected confounds and the alternative interpretations represented by those con-founds, including preschool precursors of the adolescent attributes treated as outcomesof preschool parental power-assertive practices.

Exercise of Parental Authority

Interpersonal power is the probability that one actor in a social relationship caninfluence another to do something the other would not otherwise do (Weber, 1947).Until relatively recently, parents’ right and responsibility to assert their interpersonalpower to regulate their children’s behavior was affirmed by social mores, beliefs, andlaws. Today, however, American conservatives and liberals debate parents’ right toexercise authority in ways that restrict children’s freedom. Conservatives, representingthe stabilizing force in society, uphold hierarchical order, tradition, and permanence.Conservative counselors such as Rosemond (1994) and Dobson (1992) advised parentsto compel children, by physical punishment when necessary, to submit their will toadult authority (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). In sharp contrast, liberals, representing thetransformative force in society, uphold freedom, equality, novelty, and change. MoreAmerican experts today embrace liberal rather than conservative ideology (Haidt &Graham, 2007; Redding, 2001; Wright & Cummings, 2005), and thus recommendlenient rather than strict parent practices. Brazelton (1992), Gordon (1989), and Kohn(2005), for example, have advised parents to proffer unconditional love and autonomy-support to motivate children to comply by affection and respect, not from fear ofpunishment or promise of reward.

Decades of cross-sectional research on Baumrind’s (1967; 1971a) parenting patternssuggest that both conservative authoritarian and liberal permissive parenting patternsare associated with more adverse child behaviors than the authoritative synthesis ofthose ideological opposites. The differential effects of authoritarian and authoritative(Baumrind, 1966, 1968a) patterns are well-established, but almost entirely by cross-sectional rather than time-ordered data (e.g., Baumrind 1971a, 1989, 1991a, 1991b;Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg,& Dornbusch, 1991; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996). Although Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch,and Darling (1992) found that self-reported authoritative parenting predicted adoles-cent school success 1 year later, we found no study that investigated adolescent out-comes of preschool parenting patterns, as we do here using observational data.

Relative to the permissive pattern of parental authority, both authoritarian andauthoritative patterns are strict. Although both authoritative and authoritarian parentsuse confrontive discipline, which is firm, direct, forceful, and consistent, authoritarianparents differ from authoritative parents in that they also use coercive discipline, whichis peremptory, domineering, arbitrary, and concerned with retaining hierarchical fam-ily relationships. Coercive practices have been associated with adverse child outcomes,including internalizing problems and low self-esteem (Hoffman, 1975; Patterson, 1982),

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 4: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 159

low agency (Kochanska, Padavich, & Koenig, 1996), emulation of parents’ coercivebehavior (Bandura, 1973; Patterson, 1982), and reactions of fear and aggression(Hoffman, 1975). In contrast, Barber (2002a, 2002b) reported beneficial effects of powerassertion operationalized by confrontive but not coercive practices. The effects of con-frontive discipline are likely to appear more detrimental than they actually are (seeKohn, 2005; McCord, 1996; McGee, 1992) when confounded with the effects of coercivekinds of power assertion that we hypothesize differentiate authoritarian from authori-tative parents.

By defining the opposite extreme of her broadband dimension “gentle discipline” byharsh negative discipline, with harsh negative discipline operationalized not only bysuch clearly coercive practices as “threat”and “harsh physical intervention” but also byforceful disciplinary practices such as “criticism” and “sharp command” that are con-frontive but not coercive, Kochanska (1995, p. 603) blurred the distinction betweencoercive and confrontive power assertion, a distinction that differentiates authoritativefrom authoritarian parents. To discern the proposed differential effects of these distinctkinds of power assertion we treat confrontive and several kinds of coercive powerassertion as separate dimensions, rather than as a single bipolar dimension extendingfrom gentle to confrontive to coercive.

Similarly, we distinguish between normative physical punishment (or “spanking”)and severe physical punishment to determine whether the two have contrasting effectson children. Spanking refers to that subset of the broader category of physical punish-ment that is within the normal range and is “a) physically non-injurious; b) intended tomodify behavior; and c) administered with an opened hand to the extremities or but-tocks” (Friedman & Schonberg, 1996, p. 853). Severe physical punishment is outside thenormative range in frequency and intensity. To assess the distinctive effects of spank-ing or confrontive discipline, we use a longitudinal design and control for the effects ofsevere physical punishment and for the coercive forms of power assertion with whichconfrontive discipline may be confounded.

Authoritarian-Distinctive Power Assertion

In this study, we refer to power-assertive practices as authoritarian-distinctive if they char-acterize authoritarian parents substantially more than authoritative or directive parents,and thus may account for their expected differential effects. We describe these authoritar-ian-distinctive practices as coercive. We expect the following five related coercive power-assertive disciplinary practices to differentiate authoritarian parents from authoritative ordirective parents: (1) unqualified power assertion, (2) arbitrary discipline, (3) psychologicalcontrol, (4) severe physical punishment, and (5) hostile verbal criticism.

Unqualified power assertion. Hoffman (1975, 1983, 1988) differentiated between unquali-fied and qualified power assertion. Authoritarian parents use power assertion unqualifiedby reasoned explanation to demand prompt compliance unmitigated by compensatorygratification or reciprocal encouragement of the child’s initiative and to enforce a child’ssubordinate status in a rigidly hierarchical family system.

Arbitrary discipline. Hoffman (1983) differentiated between arbitrary and rationalpower-assertive practices. Rational power assertion is characterized by coherent, predict-able consequences, clearly communicated planful directives and consideration of a

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 5: Assertive Patterns

160 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

child’s developmental needs. Arbitrary discipline is characterized by unpredictability,inconsistency, and disregard of the child’s nature or point of view. Integrating Hoff-man’s information-processing model and behaviorist theory (Patterson, 1982, 1997;Roberts & Powers, 1990), Larzelere (2001) proposed that children more readily complywhen parents initially use reasoning to increase children’s understanding of their par-ents’ directive or perspective, but readily modify their responses to persistent defiancewith increasingly forceful contingencies. At the level of discipline incidents, Larzelereand his colleagues (Larzelere & Merenda, 1994; Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, &Pike, 1998; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996) found that, in contrast witheither alone, a combination of reasoning and increasingly assertive consequences, con-sistent with the authoritative model, was optimal for reducing noncompliance andaggression in 2- and 3-year-old children.

Psychological control. Psychological control, unlike behavioral control, is the antithe-sis of autonomy-support. The distinction between the expected effects of behavioralcontrol (direct, overt, confrontive, and aimed at inducing compliance with parentaldirectives) and psychological control (indirect, covert, intrusive, and aimed at manipu-lating the child’s psychological world and personal identity), first noted by Schaefer(1959, 1965), was simultaneously incorporated by Baumrind (1966) into her paradigm.Using the terms direct and indirect rather than behavioral control and psychological control,Baumrind proposed that the use of “direct methods of influence which include cogni-tive appeal and power, rather than indirect methods such as nurturance withdrawal orguilt induction” (p. 903) support children’s autonomy, adding that the less the child “ismanipulated by guilt-inducing techniques of discipline or indirect threats of loss oflove which condition his behavior while bypassing his conscious will, the more capablehe should become of responsible (i.e., chosen) action” (p. 904).

Subsequent research (Barber, 1996, 2002a, 2002b; Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994;Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Steinberg, 1990; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989) foundno beneficial effects of psychological control, whether operationalized by the child’sperception of being controlled (Steinberg, 2005) or the personal domain over whichcontrol is attempted (Hasebe, Nucci, & Nucci, 2004; Nucci, 1996; Smetana, 2005).Whereas behavioral control of undesirable actions has been found to improve the psy-chosocial adjustment of conduct-disordered children (Eyberg, Nelson, & Boggs, 2008;Patterson, 1982) and reduce the antisocial behavior of normal children (Barber, 1996;Barber et al., 2005), psychological control has been found to disrupt children’s individu-ation process and sense of self-efficacy, and to be associated with internalizing problems(Barber et al., 2005; Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005; Stubbe, Zahner, Goldstein, &Leckman, 1993) and lower academic achievement (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004).

Severe physical punishment. Whereas 94% of American children have been spanked astoddlers, only a small minority have received severe physical punishment (Straus &Stewart, 1999). The effects of severe physical punishment are indisputably harmful.Gershoff (2002) concluded from her meta-analytic review that, with the exception ofshort-term compliance, the effects of even mild physical punishment are detrimental.However, Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) concluded from their meta-analysis that theeffects of normative spanking (physical punishment not used severely or as the pri-mary discipline method) on 2- to 12-year-old children are similar to the harmless effectsof other common disciplinary actions such as timeout and verbal reprimands.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 6: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 161

Hostile verbal criticism. The developmental psychopathology literature (e.g., Hirshfeld,Biderman, Brody, Faraone, & Rosenbaum, 1997; Seipp & Johnston, 2005) has made spe-cific reference to the detrimental effects of parental criticism, one of the two componentsof the expressed emotion scale. Vostanis, Nicholls, and Harrington (1994) found thatmaternal criticism distinguished a group of conduct disordered children from both a nor-mal control group and a group of emotionally disordered children, and was also associ-ated with subclinical problems in the normal control group. Conger and Conger (1994)found that children targeted for critical, sarcastic, harsh remarks were more likely than asibling to manifest delinquent behaviors 2 years later. Johnson et al. (2001) found thatverbal abuse during childhood predicted symptoms for 6 of 11 personality disorders dur-ing adolescence and adulthood, even after controlling for other likely predictors.

In the child development literature, “wounding words” that demean or belittle thechild (Moore & Pepler, 2006) have been shown to be a potent contributor to children’smaladjustment (Johnson et al., 2001), even more so than physical punishment(Bremner, Vermetten, & Mazure, 2000; Solomon & Serres, 1999; Straus & Field, 2003;Teicher, Samson, Polcari, & McGreenery, 2006), although the effects of these two highlycorrelated forms of power assertion are seldom analyzed separately. Yelling, belittling,sarcasm, and pointless disapproving “nattering” (Patterson, 1982, p. 69) are woundingwords that exemplify what we mean by hostile verbal criticism.

Patterns of Parental Authority

Baumrind’s (1971a; 1991b) four major parent patterns (authoritative, authoritarian,permissive, disengaged or rejecting-neglecting) have been parsimoniously representedby the intersection of two orthogonal factors—responsiveness and demandingness—so that parents fall into one quadrant when these factors are crossed at their means(Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Parenting dimensions: Responsiveness and demandingness. Responsiveness refers to emo-tional support, warmth, and actions that intentionally foster individuality and areacquiescent to the child’s needs and demands. Although different facets of responsive-ness such as warmth and sensitivity to distress have been linked to somewhat differentchild outcomes (Davidov & Grusec, 2006), there is consensus that moderate to highresponsiveness in all its instantiations is an essential criterion of high-quality parentingacross cultures (Barber et al., 2005; Rohner & Britner, 2002), promoting in children asense of security that contributes to their mental health, autonomy, and prosocialbehaviors (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993; Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994).However, Baumrind (1967, 1971a, 1991b) reported that high responsiveness, althoughclearly beneficial when conjoined with high demandingness in an authoritative config-uration, was not beneficial when conjoined with low demandingness in a permissiveconfiguration. She reasoned that because responsiveness of permissive parents is indis-criminant (not logically connected to the child’s behavior or contingent on its conse-quences) it is likely to be experienced by the child as unrealistic and overinvolved,rather than as supportive and caring.

Demandingness refers to parents’ readiness to confront a defiant child and to requiremature behavior and participation in household chores. How power assertion is mani-fested to enforce demands for desired behavior should moderate its effects. Whendemandingness is manifested by the five coercive authoritarian-distinctive kinds of

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 7: Assertive Patterns

162 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

power assertion described earlier, effects on children are seldom beneficial (Becker,1964; Dix, 1992; Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Kochanska et al., 1996; Kuczynski &Kochanska, 1990; Lytton, 1990; Power & Chapieski, 1986). However, when demanding-ness is operationalized by reinforcing strict but developmentally appropriate behav-ioral standards, the associated child attributes are often beneficial (Barber, 1996, 2002b;Baumrind, 1967, 1971a, 1991a; Patterson, 1997). Thus, the pejorative evaluation appro-priately applied to coercive forms of power-assertion may not apply to all demandingpractices, in particular not to behavioral control in the form of confrontive discipline(Barber et al., 1994; Barber et al., 2005; Baumrind, 1989, 1996a, 1996b, 2005; Larzelere &Merenda, 1994).

Parenting patterns: Baumrind’s typology. Baumrind (1971c, p. 95) maintained that “it ismore meaningful to talk about the effects of patterns of parental authority than aboutthe effects of single parental variables” because “without certain other conditions beingpresent. . . the strength or direction of an expected parent–child relationship might wellbe altered.” Baumrind’s parenting patterns are historically rooted in Baldwin’s (1955)two mutually exclusive parent leadership styles: autocratic and democratic. Baumrind(1966, 1967, 1978a) split parents into three patterns: authoritarian, permissive, andauthoritative. Authoritarian parents, similar to Baldwin’s autocratic parents, are highlydemanding but not responsive; permissive parents, similar to Baldwin’s democraticparents, are highly responsive but not demanding; authoritative parents are bothhighly demanding and responsive, rather than one more than the other.

In this study, we further differentiate the three prototypic patterns into seven dis-tinctive preschool patterns of parental authority that differ on Schaefer’s (1965) threecorrelated dimensions of firm versus lax behavioral control (i.e., demandingness),acceptance versus rejection (i.e., responsiveness), and psychological autonomy versuspsychological control. Authoritative parents are highly demanding, responsive, andautonomy-supportive (low psychological control). Directorial parents (who are moredemanding than responsive) and lenient parents (who are more responsive thandemanding) are each subdivided, based primarily on level of demanding-responsiveimbalance. Directorial parents include those who are high-psychologically controlling,high-demanding, and low-responsive (authoritarian), and those who are high-demand-ing and moderate-responsive (directive). In contrast, lenient parents are subdivided intothose who are low-demanding and high-responsive (permissive) and those who aremoderate-demanding, high-responsive, and high-autonomy supportive (democratic).Good enough parents are moderately responsive, demanding, and autonomy support-ive. Disengaged parents are least committed by being low-demanding, low-responsive,and low-autonomy supportive.

Although not defined by ideology, parenting patterns are expected to differ onsocial ideology with directorial parents more conservative than lenient parents.Authoritarian parents are expected to be the most conservative and permissive parentsthe most liberal. However, social ideology is expected to not affect adolescent outcomesbeyond the effects of parents’ childrearing practices.

Minimizing Sources of Invalidity

To buttress an interpretation of our findings on power assertive effects as causallyrelevant, we minimize the following sources of invalidity: (1) method and rater biases,

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 8: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 163

(2) definitional ambiguity, and (3) inadequate data. By causal relevance, we refer to evi-dence that an event is a sufficient, although not a necessary, causal pathway throughwhich a person, prior condition, or happening can generate a consequence (Lewontin,2000).

Method and rater biases. Method and rater biases include conditions likely to artifac-tually increase the apparent detrimental effects of all power-assertive practices includenonnormativeness, same-source bias, and selection bias.

The effects of parenting practices that are nonnormative are typically qualitativelylarger than parenting practices that fall within the normal range (Lansford et al., 2005;Scarr, 1992; Straus & Mouradian, 1998). Thus Bates, Pettit, and Dodge’s (1995) opera-tional definition of harsh discipline probably inflated the detrimental effects of norma-tive spanking by including, with spanking, items from Straus’s (1979) Conflict TacticsScale measuring abusive violence (kicking, throwing something, and beating up) thatfall outside the range of the normal home environment. We differentiate between thepossible effects of normative spanking and severe physical punishment that is non-normative for the targeted population in frequency and severity.

When the parent and child variables are based on information from a single infor-mant, a common feature of self-report studies of power-assertive effects, same-sourcebias tends to inflate associations between power-assertive practices and adverse childoutcomes (Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968). We have eliminated same-source bias byusing different observers to assess children and their parents within and across waves.

Selection bias as a result of child effects also tends to amplify apparent parent effects(Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004). For example, as Lewis (1981) asserted, the signifi-cant association between parental firm control and preschool students’ prosocialbehavior in Baumrind’s (1971a, 1971b) cross-sectional correlational analyses could beattributed to uncontrolled differences in children’s preexisting disposition to behaveprosocially, instead of to parents’ firm control. Similarly, as Baumrind, Larzelere, andCowan (2002) asserted, the apparent harmful effects of physical punishment on chil-dren’s adjustment in most of the primary studies Gershoff (2002) reviewed wereinflated by selection bias as a result of child effects. We reduce selection bias by control-ling for preexisting differences among children on the adolescent outcomes and, insome analyses, for externalizing behavior problems.

Definitional ambiguity. Definitional ambiguity involves using the same word forwhat may be fundamentally different constructs or behaviors. This practice remains amajor impediment to evaluating differential effects of distinctive kinds of power-assertive disciplinary practices. We regard the distinction between coercive andconfrontive power assertion as crucial to explaining the contrasting effects of author-itarian and authoritative parenting. However, many investigators in practice do notmake that distinction. For example, by treating all kinds of behavioral control andautonomy support as binary opposites, Grolnick (2003) precludes the possibility that dis-ciplinary interventions by some parents could best be characterized as both autonomysupportive and behaviorally controlling. A feature of authoritative parents distinguish-ing them from authoritarian parents is that they are both autonomy supportive andbehaviorally controlling; that is, they are high on behavioral control but not coercive. Byour definition, authoritative parents are confrontive but not coercive, whereas authoritarianparents are both coercive and confrontive, and thus adversely “controlling.”

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 9: Assertive Patterns

164 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Inadequate data. Although observational and interview data are acknowledged toprovide more valid and comprehensive information on socialization practices and theireffects than sole reliance on self-reports, most nonexperimental studies of socializationeffects still rely on self-report questionnaires, often from a single informant. For exam-ple, as Barber and Harmon (2002) noted, 81% of the investigations of psychologicalcontrol use self-report measures, obtained primarily from the adolescent, thus assess-ing adolescents’ perception of being controlled, an important measure, but not of par-ents’ actual exercise of psychological control. Similarly, most of the studies thatSteinberg (2001) cited in his review of parenting effects on adolescents (e.g., Darling &Steinberg, 1993; Steinberg et al., 1989; Steinberg et al., 1992) rely on self-report question-naires from a single informant.

The Present Study

Overview. The focus of this report is on effects of variations in parental authorityduring preschool on adolescent competence and emotional health because in contrastwith latency (Time 2 in our data), preschool (Time 1), and early adolescence (Time 3)are developmental periods when children are prone to contest parental authority. Weoperationalize emotional health as low incidence of problem behaviors and competence asan integrated balance between agentic (confident, individuated, efficacious) and com-munal (prosocial, cooperative, achievement-oriented) behavior. Agency and communion,terms adopted by Bakan (1966) to characterize two fundamental modalities of humanexistence, correspond to the two orthogonal axes that emerge from most factor analysesof human behavior (e.g., Baumrind & Black, 1967; Lonner, 1980; Wiggins, 1979). Ourhypotheses instantiate the general proposition that there are theoretically meaningfuldifferential effects on adolescents’ emotional health and competence of parents’ coer-cive versus confrontive power-assertive practices and patterns.

We hypothesize that, in contrast with adolescents from authoritative and directivefamilies, adolescents from authoritarian families will lack competence and emotionalhealth, although all three groups of parents are highly behaviorally controlling, asassessed by confrontive discipline. Similarly, we hypothesize that in contrast withadolescents from authoritative and democratic families, adolescent outcomes for per-missive families will be adverse, although all three groups of parents are highlyresponsive. Permissive parents are low on authoritarian-distinctive kinds of detrimen-tal power assertion, but they are also low on behavioral control and household man-agement, two kinds of demanding practices expected to have beneficial effects. It isimplied by these hypotheses that, to maximize the beneficial effects of a high level ofbehavioral control, parents must not also be coercive, and to maximize the beneficialeffects of a high level of responsiveness parents must also use at least average levels ofbehavioral control and household management.

Typological analyses: Evaluating the effects of parenting patterns. We theorize that thebalance between demandingness (what parents require of a child in terms of obedience,maturity demands, and household help) and responsiveness (what parents offer a childin terms of affection and autonomy support) and commitment (high levels of bothdemandingness and responsiveness) will be significant determinants of the differentiallong-term effects of parenting patterns on children’s competence and emotional health.To test this superordinate hypothesis, we aggregate the seven patterns of parental

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 10: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 165

authority into two supergroups and an intermediate good enough group, on the basis oftheir relative approximations to the authoritative prototype exemplifying the ideal par-ent who is both balanced and committed. By definition, authoritative parents use highlevels of both responsiveness and the specific forms of demandingness expected to bebeneficial, namely household management and behavioral control.

The supergroup labeled balanced-committed consists of authoritative parents and thetwo complementary patterns closest in fit on balance and commitment to the authorita-tive prototype: democratic parents, who are highly responsive and moderately demand-ing, and directive parents, who are highly demanding and moderately responsive. Thesupergroup labeled imbalanced-uncommitted consists of the three patterns farthest in fitfrom the authoritative prototype on balance and/or commitment: (1) disengaged par-ents, who are low-demanding and low-responsive, thus the least committed group;and the two least balanced patterns, (2) permissive parents, who are low-demandingand high-responsive; and (3) authoritarian parents, who are low-responsive and high-demanding. The intermediate good enough families are average-responsive and aver-age-demanding.

We expect all outcomes for adolescents from families in the balanced-committedsupergroup during the preschool period to be significantly more beneficial than foradolescents from families in the imbalanced-uncommitted supergroup. As their namesuggests, we expect adolescents from good enough families to be adequately adjusted(competent and emotionally healthy).

If adolescent outcomes differ by supergroups, we then test T2 and T3 parentingstyles as possible mediators of the effects of preschool parenting styles on adolescentoutcomes to determine whether the distal T1 supergroups predict T3 outcomes beyondthat predicted by more proximal parenting effects, an affirmative answer signifyingthat there are discernible unique effects of preschool parenting.

A priori hypotheses pertaining to specific differential outcomes by pattern differ-ences are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Adolescents from authoritative families will be best adjusted with thelargest differences relative to imbalanced-uncommitted families, the smallest dif-ferences relative to other balanced-committed families, and moderate differencesrelative to good enough families.

Hypothesis 2: Adolescent outcomes for different patterns of behaviorally controllingfamilies (i.e., authoritative, directive, authoritarian) will differ significantly,depending on whether parents are also coercive. In contrast with adolescentsfrom authoritarian families (who are coercive) adolescents from authoritative anddirective families (who are not coercive) are expected to be well-adjusted.

Hypothesis 3: Adolescent outcomes for the three different patterns of families whoare highly responsive and not coercive (i.e., authoritative, democratic, permissive)will differ significantly, depending on level of behavioral control. Specifically,outcomes will be adverse for permissive families because they do not assertbehavioral control, but favorable for democratic and authoritative familiesbecause they do assert behavioral control.

Hypothesis 4: Among imbalanced-uncommitted families (i.e., authoritarian, permis-sive, disengaged), adolescent outcomes will be less adverse for permissive thanfor authoritarian families because authoritarian families rely on coercive forms ofpower assertion that we hypothesize are never beneficial, whereas the high

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 11: Assertive Patterns

166 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

responsiveness and low coerciveness of permissive families may be beneficial andprotective for vulnerable children.

If Hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported, we then evaluate the relative effects of authori-tarian-distinctive parenting variables that we hypothesize could account in part for theharmful effects of authoritarian parenting. We also evaluate the effects of low levels ofbehavioral control which could account in part for the detrimental effects of permissiveparenting compared with authoritative and democratic parenting.

Variable analyses: Evaluating variants of power assertion. We expect the effects of highdemandingness to differ depending on how demandingness is operationalized by thedifferent variants of power assertion. (Household management is a demandingnessvariable used as a pattern definer but is not a power-assertive variable.) Whendemandingness is confrontive, we expect the effects of high demandingness to be bene-ficial (confrontive discipline) or neutral (spanking). When demandingness is coercive,we expect the effects to be detrimental.

We first determine whether the five coercive power-assertive variables qualifyempirically as authoritarian-distinctive (defined earlier). We next determine the rela-tive sizes of the effects of these five coercive power-assertive practices. Last, we com-bine the most detrimental kinds of power assertion with confrontive discipline in a setof comprehensive net-effects analyses to determine the effects of each after controllingfor the effects of the others. We expect the effects of confrontive discipline to be benefi-cial when effects of the five coercive forms of power assertion are controlled.

We hypothesize that any detrimental effects of physical punishment in early child-hood are the result of its overly severe use. Severe physical punishment, in contrastwith spanking, is included among coercive forms of power assertion which we expectto be authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental. We expect no detrimental effects ofspanking (i.e., normative physical punishment).

Last, we expect parents’ social ideology to affect children’s competence and mentalhealth only by affecting parents’ childrearing practices. We expect allegiance to eitherconservative or liberal ideology to have adverse effects when represented by authori-tarian or permissive parenting practices respectively.

METHODS

Participants

Participant families in the Family Socialization Project (FSP) were relatively homog-enous with regard to good health, European American ancestry, middle-class status,and above-average intelligence. All children were sufficiently well-adjusted to beincluded in regular classrooms.

Participants were recruited from among all children attending 13 nursery schools inBerkeley, California, and its environs in the 1960s. Exclusionary criteria includedteacher report of significant psychopathology in the child, child IQ of less than 95, onlyone parent in the home, and child less than 3 years old. Remaining were 150 familieswho agreed to participate in the home visit phase of the study, representing more thanhalf of the families from the 13 nursery schools. The 16 African American children and

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 12: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 167

families who took part in the FSP at Time 1 (T1) were excluded from our analysesbecause the parent–child relationship patterns were not the same as for the EuropeanAmerican families at T1, and therefore they were not followed longitudinally. (Dataregarding these African American families are available in Baumrind, 1972.)

Consequently, the original T1 FSP sample comprised 60 European American girls and74 European American boys and their families. Fathers had an average of 18 years ofeducation and mother’s education averaged 16 years; fathers’ mean age was 37.2 years,and mothers’ mean age was 34.1 years. On average, there were 2.6 children per family.More information about sample recruitment and characteristics is available in Baumrind(1971a). At Time 2 (T2), 104 of these families were retained, and 30 were not seen. AtTime 3 (T3) 84 of the families seen at T2 were retained, and three not seen at T2 (but hadbeen seen at T1) were seen at T3, resulting in 87 families (65% of those who began thestudy at T1) providing data at T3. For the majority of analyses in this article, data fromthe 87 families (48 boys, 39 girls) seen at T1 and T3 were used. Analyses also involvingT2 data have an n of 82, because of missing parenting data for two families (the childrenwere seen, so they are considered among the 84 retained at T2, but the parents were not).Ages for the 87 children whose data were used in the present study were as follows:at T1, M = 4.5 years (SD = .43 years, range = 3.4 to 5.2 years), with 91% between 3.8 and5.1 years; at T2, M = 9.0 (SD = .64 years, range = 7.6 to 11.3 years), with 89% from 8.1 to9.6 years; at T3, M = 15.1 (SD = .48 years, range = 13.8 to 16.9 years), with 90% from14.5 to 15.7 years. Attrition was primarily the result of families moving from the area.Comparisons between those omitted versus those retained from T1 through T3 showedno significant differences on baseline parent and child variables used in this study.

Procedures

Data were collected using multiple methods in multiple settings. To increase ecologicalvalidity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) our raters relied on records of participants’ behavior inseveral natural environments. Specifically, information about parents and children wasderived from extended direct observation in home, classroom, school playground, and ina peer context outside of school for adolescents, supplemented by observations in labora-tory settings, semi-structured interviews with parents, children, and teachers, and stan-dardized and project-designed psychological tests. Observations and interviews wereconducted by highly trained professional psychologists. To prevent bias from sharedsource variance, observers/interviewers differed for the child and his or her parents, anddiffered across time points for each participant. At each time point, children wereobserved, interviewed, and tested for approximately 20 hr, and parents were observed,interviewed, and tested for about 30 hr. Subsequently, using the case records (transcriptsof the entire battery of interviews, observations, and tests at a particular time point), theprimary observers/interviewers for each family completed project-designed Q-sorts andLikert-type scales for children, and Likert-type rating scales for parents. The items at eachtime point were tailored to apply to the actual settings in which the children or parent–child interactions were observed (see Appendices A and B for items used in analyses).

T1 and T3 Measures and Variables

Variables used in analyses were created by combining items from project-designed mea-sures. In certain cases (e.g., when assessing the parenting types), these project-designed

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 13: Assertive Patterns

168 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

items were combined into first-order factors, and then first-order factors were com-bined to create variables. Decisions about how to combine items were empiricallybased. Therefore, this section begins with descriptions of project-designed measuresapplied separately to children and parents, and follows with empirical proceduresused to derive specific child and parent variables from the items in these measures.

Project-designed child measures. Observers completed the 72-item Preschool BehaviorQ-Sort (Baumrind, 1968b) at T1 and the 90-item Adolescent Q-Sort (1978a) at T3. Theyalso completed the Adolescent Rating Scales (63 Likert-type items [1978b]) at T3.Across time, Q-sort and rating scale item content was similar and reflected behavioral,social, emotional, personal, and cognitive competencies, but with each successivedevelopmental stage additional items were included and worded to match the increas-ingly differentiated characteristics of the maturing child.

Reliabilities of item ratings for the children were established by comparison withratings made by a separate, trained observer. At T1, about 25% of participants wereQ-sorted by a reliability rater who had done extensive observation of the child. Theinterrater reliabilities for items across observers averaged .68, with 10% less than .60and 10% greater than .80. At T3, each adolescent was double-rated with an averageitem reliability of .87 for the Q-sort items and of .85 for the rating scale items. At T3, rat-ings were averaged to produce final item scores. As might be expected, the items withlow reliabilities (.60 or less) did not show a sufficiently high pattern of intercorrelationwith other items to contribute to the final variables (see Appendix A), whereas itemswith high reliabilities (.80 or greater) were generally included in the variables.

Subsequent to the original period of data collection using transcripts of all observa-tions and interviews, the Child Problem Behavior Scale was completed for each child.This instrument was composed of items from the 113-item Child Behavior Checklist(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and supplemented by 13 project-developed items at T1and 21 at T3. Again, with each successive developmental stage additional items wereincluded to match the increasingly differentiated status of the maturing child. Itemsfrom this measure were used to create separate T1 and T3 child and adolescent behaviorproblem variables analyzed herein (total, externalizing, and internalizing problems).Mean interrater item reliabilities across time periods for the entire scale averaged .86.

Project-designed parent measures. Ratings of parental behavior were made by theprimary observer/interviewer on Likert-type scales. Measures included the 81-itemMother and Father Preschool Rating Scales at T1 and the 174-item Rating Scales forParents of Adolescent Children at T3. The latter was composed of behavior rating scaleitems similar to those administered at T1, but also included items indexing parents’ per-sonal attributes and describing the family environment and familial relationships. In addi-tion to these observer ratings of parenting, parents themselves completed the ParentAttitude Inquiry, a 113-item project-designed measure of childrearing ideology, fromwhich we derived the variable promotes conformity and Obedience (for more informationabout the Parent Attitude Inquiry, see Section II of Appendix B and Baumrind, 1971a).

At T1, ratings on the Mother and Father Preschool Rating Scales were completed bya reliability rater for 31 sets of parents. The mean interrater item reliability value was.76 for mother and .75 for father. Seven interrater item reliabilities were less than .60,and 14 were greater than .89. At T3, all parents were rated by a primary and a reliabilityobserver/interviewer. Interrater reliabilities for the Rating Scales for Parents of

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 14: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 169

Adolescent Children items at T3 ranged from .48 to .96 with a median of .86. The itemswith low reliability did not contribute to the final variables (see Appendix B).

A new instrument, the 71-item Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale (PDRS), was project-designed to assess the specific disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers who partic-ipated in the FSP at each time period, because specific disciplinary practices had notbeen assessed with original FSP measures. At each time period these ratings (except forone of physical punishment) were made on 3-point scales ranging from 1 (not character-istic of parent), 2 (somewhat characteristic of parent), 3 (highly characteristic of parent).Trained coders based their ratings on the transcribed mother and father interviews andthe descriptions of home observations of the entire family. All but 18 families seen at T1were rated by two coders from among teams of 4 to 6 coders at each time period (those18 were not seen at T2 or T3). Interrater reliability for each item was then assessed interms of weighted percent agreement between two raters across all cases, with a dis-agreement of 1 point discounted less than a disagreement of 2 points. Agreementsacross raters were calculated separately for mothers and fathers. When the interrateragreement for mothers and fathers was less than 70%, we omitted the item from furtheranalyses (11 items at T1 and 11 at T3). For the remaining items, weighted (exact = 1; offby 1 point = .5) interrater agreement was as follows: at T1 for mothers, interrater agree-ment averaged 83%, with a range of 62% to 99%; at T1 for fathers, agreement averaged84%, with a range of 74% to 100%; at T3 for mothers, agreement averaged 82%, with arange of 73% to 98%; at T3 for fathers, agreement averaged 85%, with a range of 73% to99%. Final item scores were created by averaging across raters.

Derivation of Child Variables

Although hypothetical constructs were initially used to develop the child items, thevariables we analyzed were determined by empirical reduction using BC TRY clusteranalytic techniques (Tryon & Bailey, 1966) and principal component analyses using theitem-level data from the aforementioned Q-sorts, Likert-type rating scales, and ChildProblem Behavior Scale. All final variable scores were transformed into standardizedT scores with Ms = 50 and SDs = 10.

T3 adolescent outcomes. Six specific outcomes (see Appendix A) and two generic out-comes (general competence and total problems) comprised the eight T3 adolescent out-comes used as dependent variables throughout the analyses. The six specific outcomesincluded a cognitive effort variable (cognitive competence), a communal variable(communal competence), and two agency variables (individuation and self-efficacy), aswell as externalizing problems and internalizing problems. These were derived via theBC TRY cluster analysis procedure that grouped items from the observer-rated Adoles-cent Q-sort to yield a set of correlated clusters. The general competence score wascalculated using a one-component solution from principal components analysis of the90 Adolescent Q-sort items and the cognitive and physical functioning items from theAdolescent Rating Scales. The 10 highest loading items were: perseveres under pres-sure, endows activity with personal meaning, not frustrated in performance of cogni-tive activity, copes realistically with stress, productive, happily occupied, acceptsresponsibility for own failures, exerts maximum effort in intellectual tasks, proud ofaccomplishments, and dependable and trustworthy. The total problems score (a = .91)was comprised of the 79 items from the Child Behavior Problem Scales for which there

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 15: Assertive Patterns

170 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

were more than five cases with nonzero values. In addition to the 20 items comprisingthe internalizing problem behavior and externalizing problem behavior scales (seeAppendix A), the total problems score included 59 other items reflecting (1) internaliz-ing problems (e.g., anxious or fearful, fears specific objects, somatizes) and externalizingproblems (e.g., argues a lot, bossy or bullying with peers, disobedient with parents),and (2) general personal maladjustment (e.g., eats poorly, immature, accident prone,socially disruptive, shy or timid, underactive, easily led by peers, gets teased a lot).

Preexisting differences among children. Variables analogous to the eight T3 adolescentoutcomes (general competence, total problems, and the six specific outcomes) werecreated from the T1 items. These were used as covariates in analyses to control for vari-ations in competence and maladjustment existing among children when they wereinitially observed. For brevity, the specific items comprising these T1 covariates are notdetailed, but information regarding the cluster analysis of child items at T1 is availablein Baumrind (1971a). The T1 externalizing problems variable was used to control forselection bias in certain analyses of power-assertive variables.

T1 child IQ. Child IQ was measured at T1 using the full-scale score from theStanford-Binet Form LM (Terman & Merrill, 1960).

Derivation of T1 Parent Variables

As was true for the child variables, hypothetical constructs were initially used todevelop the parent items, and the variables we analyzed were constructed by empiricalanalysis. Scores for mothers and fathers were combined at either the item or variablelevel, producing single parent or combined parenting variables for each family. All finalvariable scores were transformed into standardized T scores with Ms = 50 and SDs = 10.

Variables derived from Likert-type rating scales. Items from the Mother and FatherPreschool Rating Scales were grouped to yield a set of correlated clusters via the BCTRY cluster analysis procedure. Also, seven items from the Family Behavior ProblemChecklist were used to calculate the Intrusive variable (see Appendix B). The followingfive T1 variables resulting from these analyses were used and are detailed in AppendixB (Section I): confrontive discipline, household management (an average of the house-hold help and maintains structure and regimen variables; r = .34, p < .001), responsive,unqualified power assertion, and psychological control (an average of the intrusive andencourages independence and individuation [reversed] variables; r = −.12, ns).

Variables derived from the PDRS. Three variables (see Appendix B, Section III) werederived from empirical reduction of mother and father items from the PDRS: arbitrarydiscipline, verbal hostility, and physical punishment. All items were rated on 3-pointscales, except for the last of three items comprising the physical punishment variable thatwas rated on a 5-point scale. Mother and father items were averaged to create each of thethree variables from the PDRS used in the present analyses of effects of parent dyads.

Three measures of physical punishment were distinguished: total physical punish-ment, severe physical punishment, and spanking. Total physical punishment (or sim-ply physical punishment) was measured by three items on the PDRS (see Appendix B).Severe physical punishment was a dichotomous variable that was indicated when both

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 16: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 171

total physical punishment and physical punishment intensity were more than 1 SDgreater than the mean. Physical punishment intensity was the average of two PDRSitems about (1) using an object for paddling or striking the head or torso and (2) liftingand throwing or shaking the child. Average rates of physical punishment intensity inthis sample were very low (1.08 at T1 on the 1- to 3-point scale), with most familiesdisplaying no intensity even at the highest frequency of total physical punishment.Last, normative physical punishment (or spanking) was measured by total physicalpunishment only in those families who did not use severe physical punishment. Thatis, for analyses of normative physical punishment, the seven families who used physi-cal punishment excessively and intensely (i.e., scored “1” for yes on severe physicalpunishment; see Appendix B) at T1 were removed. A family was included in the severephysical punishment group when their scores on total physical punishment and physi-cal punishment intensity, each of which had been averaged across parents, were bothgreater than one SD greater than the sample mean.

Parental types. The parenting types at each time point were derived by a second-order principal component analysis of 20 first-order factors (10 for mother and 10 forfather) derived from the Mother and Father Preschool Behavior Scale items. For thesake of brevity, the items comprising these first-order factors are not described, butdetails can be found in Baumrind (1971a). In the second-order principal componentanalysis, two primary factors were extracted: demandingness and responsiveness (forconceptual definitions of both factors, see “Patterns of Parental Authority” under theIntroduction section). Parents were categorized into 1 of 7 parenting types (i.e., author-itative, democratic, directive, authoritarian, good enough, permissive, disengaged)according to their T scores on these demandingness and responsiveness second-orderfactors. More detail about the original derivation of parental types is available inBaumrind (1991b).

At T2 and T3, identical procedures were used to type parents. However, items on theparent behavior scales varied somewhat from time point to time point to reflect howparenting practices and behaviors change with the increasing developmental maturityof the child. Consequently, the items comprising the first-order factors and the names ofthose factors changed somewhat from time point to time point. Ultimately, the second-order demandingness and responsiveness factors derived from them were conceptuallycoherent and, with the exception of T1 to T3 demandingness, moderately correlatedacross time. For responsiveness, the correlations were r = .49, p <.001 (T1 to T2), r = .55,p < .001 (T2 to T3), r = .38, p < .001 (T1 to T3). For demandingness, the correlations werer = .47, p < .001 (T1 to T2), r = .41, p < .001 (T2 to T3), r = .14, ns (T1 to T3). Effectivedemandingness during preschool may reduce the need for demandingness in adolescence.

Other parent variables. T1 parental education was rated on a 9-point scale rangingfrom 1 (high School diploma) to 9 (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., or Ed.D). Separate ratings were madefor mother and father and were averaged to create a single parental education score.Given the era and the fact that the majority of mothers in this sample were at homewith their children, socioeconomic status was indexed by rating father’s occupationalstatus according to the Stevens and Cho Index (1985). Promotes conformity and obedi-ence was 1 of 5 factors obtained from a factor analysis of the Parent Attitude Inquiryitems: The same solution was applied to mother and father data, and the resulting fac-tors were averaged to create a single score of social ideology for each parental dyad.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 17: Assertive Patterns

172 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses served two purposes: to identify relevant demographic covari-ates from T1 and to evaluate the role of attrition. A set of multivariate analyses of cova-riance (MANCOVAs) tested whether the eight adolescent outcomes in Table 1 variedoverall by supergroups, by five demographic variables, and by two-way Supergroup ×Demographic interactions. Statistical power was maximized by using supergroupsinstead of specific parenting patterns and by considering one demographic variable ata time. The demographic variables were gender, socioeconomic status, child IQ, child age,and parents’ education. The final overall MANCOVA incorporated all significant demo-graphic variables and was replicated with the seven T1 parenting patterns substituted forthe T1 supergroups, because most analyses in this study analyze the seven T1 patterns.

Child IQ was the only demographic variable with a significant main effect on T3outcomes. In the final MANCOVA of supergroups, child IQ and supergroups bothpredicted the eight T3 outcomes, F(8, 76) = 3.07, p < .01, and F(16, 152) = 2.35, p < .01,respectively (on the basis of Wilks’s lambda). The univariate ANCOVAs indicated thatIQ was a significant predictor of general competence, F(1, 76) = 4.71, p < .05; cognitivecompetence, F(1, 76) = 9.79, p < .01; individuation, F(1, 76) = 11.94, p < .001; and self-efficacy, F(1, 76) = 12.35, p < .001. IQ is therefore included as a covariate in all analysesof those four outcomes in this study. This final model was successfully replicated in aMANCOVA that substituted the seven parenting patterns for the supergroups, F(8, 72) =3.33 for child IQ, and F(48, 358.3) = 1.64 for the seven parenting patterns, ps < .01.No demographic variable interacted significantly with the supergroups.

Preliminary analyses of attrition contrasted the 87 T1 families from whom adoles-cent outcomes were obtained with the other 47 T1 families missing data for thoseoutcomes. The attrition cases did not differ from the completed cases on the five demo-graphic variables or on the eight T1 precursors of the outcome variables, Fs(1, 94 to 132)< 2.03, ps > .15. Moreover, there were no differences in the distribution of parentingpatterns by attrition status, c2(6, N = 134) = 1.13, ns. Thus, the attrition families did notdiffer from those with adolescent outcomes on any variable tested.

Adolescent Outcomes of Preschool Parenting Patterns

Supergroups. Seven of the eight T3 outcomes differed significantly by T1 supergroups,Fs(2, 82 or 83) > 4.84, ps < .05, controlling for T1 precursors of the outcomes and childIQ where warranted (see Table 1). Externalizing problems differed marginally bysupergroups, F(2, 83) = 2.43, p < .10. Pairwise comparisons indicated that, as hypothe-sized, adolescents from balanced-committed families had significantly better outcomesthan those from imbalanced-uncommitted families on all outcomes except for external-izing problems, ps < .05 (all pairwise comparisons used Fisher’s Least SignificantDifference Test). Adolescents from good enough families had significantly betteroutcomes than those from imbalanced-uncommitted families on general competence,cognitive competence, and internalizing problems (ps < .05), but did not differ signifi-cantly from balanced-committed families on any adolescent outcome.

Specific parenting patterns. Seven adolescent outcomes (all except externalizing prob-lems) also differed significantly by the seven specific T1 parenting patterns, controlling

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 18: Assertive Patterns

173

TABL

E 1

Mea

n A

dole

scen

t Out

com

es A

ssoc

iate

d W

ith P

aren

ting

Patte

rns

Dur

ing

Pres

choo

l (St

anda

rd E

rror

s)

Pres

choo

l Par

entin

g Pa

ttern

nG

ener

al

Com

pete

ncea

Indi

vidu

ated

aSe

lf-Ef

ficac

yaC

ogni

tive

Com

pete

ncea

Com

mun

al

Com

pete

nceb

Tota

l Pr

oble

msb

Exte

rnal

izin

g Pr

oble

msb

Inte

rnal

izin

g Pr

oble

msb

Supe

rgro

ups

Bala

nced

-com

mitt

ed38

54.6

154

.21

54.7

153

.61

53.7

146

.71

47.6

c47

.11

(1.3

9)(1

.45)

(1.4

7)(1

.49)

(1.4

7)(1

.34)

(1.5

2)(1

.42)

Goo

d en

ough

1751

.61

50.4

051

.30

51.5

150

.50

49.6

050

.247

.31

(2.1

2)(2

.20)

(2.2

4)(2

.27)

(2.1

9)(2

.10)

(2.3

2)(2

.17)

Imba

lanc

ed-u

ncom

mitt

ed32

45.0

−246

.3−1

46.2

−145

.1−2

46.1

−153

.1−1

52.6

c53

.8−2

(1.5

5)(1

.61)

(1.6

4)(1

.66)

(1.5

9)(1

.54)

(1.6

9)(1

.61)

F(2,

83)

d10

.51*

**6.

66**

7.28

**7.

24**

6.09

**4.

85*

2.43

e5.

27**

η2.2

0.1

4.1

5.1

5.1

3.1

1.0

6.1

1

Spec

ific p

aren

ting

patte

rns

Aut

hori

tativ

e6

57.0

259

.24

56.3

156

.12

54.3

144

.71

45.0

46.3

1(3

.47)

(3.6

8)(3

.79)

(3.8

1)(3

.45)

(3.3

1)(3

.92)

(3.4

9)D

emoc

ratic

1752

.21

52.1

155

.53

52.0

250

.50

47.7

149

.247

.51

(2.0

3)(2

.18)

(2.2

4)(2

.26)

(2.0

2)(1

.96)

(2.3

1)(2

.07)

Dir

ectiv

e15

56.5

354

.72

53.1

154

.42

57.2

346

.31

46.7

47.0

1(2

.16)

(2.3

1)(2

.38)

(2.4

0)(2

.16)

(2.1

2)(2

.46)

(2.2

2)A

utho

rita

rian

1340

.5−5

44.4

−344

.6−3

43.8

−439

.7−6

57.2

−552

.558

.4−5

(2.4

7)(2

.65)

(2.7

3)(2

.75)

(2.3

1)(2

.32)

(2.7

4)(2

.39)

Goo

d en

ough

1751

.81

50.4

−151

.30

51.5

150

.50

49.5

150

.147

.41

(2.0

7)(2

.21)

(2.2

8)(2

.30)

(2.0

3)(2

.08)

(2.3

7)(2

.14)

(Con

tinue

d)

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 19: Assertive Patterns

174

TABL

E 1

(Con

tinue

d)

Pres

choo

l Par

entin

g Pa

ttern

nG

ener

al

Com

pete

ncea

Indi

vidu

ated

aSe

lf-Ef

ficac

yaC

ogni

tive

Com

pete

ncea

Com

mun

al

Com

pete

nceb

Tota

l Pr

oble

msb

Exte

rnal

izin

g Pr

oble

msb

Inte

rnal

izin

g Pr

oble

msb

Perm

issi

ve9

46.7

−246

.2−2

46.8

−144

.1−3

50.2

150

.01

52.6

51.0

0(2

.83)

(3.0

6)(3

.13)

(3.1

3)(2

.78)

(2.7

1)(3

.18)

(2.8

8)D

isen

gage

d10

48.8

048

.6−1

47.6

−147

.70

50.7

150

.80

52.9

50.1

1(2

.64)

(2.8

3)(2

.93)

(2.9

4)(2

.64)

(2.6

6)(3

.04)

(2.7

9)

F(6,

79)

d5.

13**

*2.

90*

2.59

*2.

72*

5.38

***

2.66

*0.

962.

92*

η2.2

8.1

8.1

7.1

7.2

9.1

7.0

7.1

8

Not

e. A

ll ad

oles

cent

out

com

es a

re sc

aled

so th

at M

= 5

0 an

d SD

= 1

0. T

he su

bscr

ipts

show

the

net n

umbe

r of s

igni

fican

t pai

rwis

e co

mpa

riso

ns fo

r eac

h pa

rent

ing

patte

rn o

n ea

ch a

dole

scen

t out

com

e, u

sing

Fis

her’s

leas

t sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

pro

cedu

re, p

< .0

5. T

he s

ign

indi

cate

s w

heth

er th

at p

aren

ting

patte

rn is

ass

ocia

ted

with

mos

tly si

gnifi

cant

ly b

ette

r (+)

or w

orse

(–) l

evel

s of t

hat a

dole

scen

t out

com

e. F

or e

xam

ple,

the

subs

crip

t of 1

atta

ched

to th

e va

lue

of 5

4.6

in th

e up

per l

eft-h

and

corn

er o

f the

tabl

e in

dica

tes

that

mea

n ge

nera

l com

pete

nce

was

sig

nific

antly

hig

her

for

the

bala

nced

-com

mitt

ed s

uper

grou

p th

an fo

r on

e ot

her

supe

rgro

up. I

tali-

cize

d su

bscr

ipts

indi

cate

that

a m

ean

is s

igni

fican

tly b

ette

r tha

n at

leas

t one

oth

er m

ean

but s

igni

fican

tly w

orse

than

at l

east

one

oth

er m

ean.

a Con

trol

ling

for I

Q a

s w

ell a

s th

e T1

ver

sion

of t

he o

utco

me

vari

able

.b C

ontr

ollin

g fo

r onl

y th

e T1

ver

sion

of t

he o

utco

me

vari

able

.c Tw

o su

perg

roup

s di

ffere

d at

p <

.05,

but

the

over

all F

was

onl

y m

argi

nally

sig

nific

ant (

p <

.10)

.d Th

e de

nom

inat

or d

egre

es o

f fre

edom

are

redu

ced

by o

ne fo

r ana

lyse

s in

corp

orat

ing

IQ a

s an

addi

tiona

l cov

aria

te.

e p <

.10.

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1. **

*p <

.001

.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 20: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 175

for T1 precursors of the adolescent outcomes and child IQ where warranted, Fs(6, 78 or79) > 2.58, ps < .05 (see Table 1). Authoritative and directive parenting patterns wereassociated with the highest levels of general competence and the lowest levels of totalproblems in adolescence. In sharp contrast, authoritarian parenting was associatedwith the most adverse levels of general competence and of total problems in adoles-cence. The other parenting patterns were associated with intermediate levels of thesetwo comprehensive outcomes. Averaging across all four specific competence scores(i.e., individuation, self-efficacy, cognitive competence, and communal competence),the mean T scores ranked in the following order: authoritative (56.5), directive (54.9),democratic (52.5), good enough (50.9), disengaged (48.7), permissive (46.8), and author-itarian (43.1). The effect size between authoritative versus authoritarian families wasvery large (d = 1.34). The parenting patterns were ranked in the same order on meanspecific problem T scores (i.e., the average of externalizing and internalizing): authori-tative (45.7), directive (46.9), democratic (48.4), good enough (48.8), disengaged (51.5),permissive (51.8), and authoritarian (55.5). The effect size between the extreme groupson problem outcomes was also very large (d = 0.98).

Specific a priori contrasts. In view of the small cell sizes, degree of departure from thenull hypothesis must be large for the a priori hypotheses to be significant at the .05level. The first a priori hypothesis predicted that adolescent outcomes would be best inauthoritative families, with small differences relative to the other balanced-committedfamilies (i.e., democratic and directive), moderate differences relative to good enoughfamilies, and larger differences relative to imbalanced-uncommitted families (i.e.,authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged). Results were generally consistent with thishypothesis (see Table 1). The adolescent outcomes in authoritative families, althoughgenerally better, never differed significantly from those in democratic or directive fami-lies. Adolescents with authoritative parents at T1 had significantly better outcomes thanadolescents with authoritarian parents on all outcomes except externalizing problems,all ps < .05. They were significantly higher than children with permissive parents ongeneral competence, cognitive competence, and individuation but significantly higherthan children with disengaged or good enough parents only on individuation, ps < .05.

The second a priori hypothesis predicted differential adolescent outcomes for the threeparenting patterns (authoritarian, authoritative, directive) high on confrontive discipline(a noncoercive form of demandingness). As predicted, adolescents from authoritarianfamilies had significantly worse outcomes than those from either authoritative or directivefamilies on all outcomes except for externalizing problems (see Table 1). The ordering ofmean outcomes for all seven parenting patterns showed adverse long-term effects of highconfrontive discipline during the preschool years on adolescent outcomes (individuationand self-efficacy) only when parents’ responsiveness was low, including low autonomysupport (encourages independence and individuation), as for authoritarian parents.

The third hypothesis involved comparisons among the three parenting patternshighest on responsiveness: authoritative, democratic, and permissive. As predicted,adolescents from permissive families had worse outcomes than adolescents fromauthoritative or democratic families (see Table 1): Adolescents from permissive fami-lies had significantly lower cognitive competence than those from either authoritativeor democratic families; they were also significantly lower on general competence andindividuation than adolescents from authoritative families, and on self-efficacy com-pared with adolescents from democratic families, ps < .05. Responsiveness had long-term

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 21: Assertive Patterns

176 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

beneficial effects on autonomy outcomes (individuation and self-efficacy) only whencombined with medium-to-high levels of demandingness.

The fourth hypothesis was that adolescent outcomes would be less adverse forpermissive than for authoritarian families. Overall, this hypothesis was supported,although pairwise contrasts of permissive versus authoritarian families were signifi-cant only for communal competence and total problems (see Table 1). However, 69% ofthe significant pairwise comparisons among all seven parenting patterns indicated thatthe outcomes of authoritarian parenting compared unfavorably with another parentingpattern, whereas only 18% of those significant comparisons indicated that the out-comes of permissive parenting compared unfavorably with another pattern. Permis-sive parenting compared unfavorably only with the three balanced-committedparenting patterns, whereas authoritarian parenting compared unfavorably with allthe other parenting patterns on at least some outcomes.

Unique Effects of Preschool Parenting Patterns

The associations between T1 parenting patterns and T3 outcomes could have been theresult of the effects of subsequent parenting patterns. To investigate this possibility, wetested whether parenting patterns at either T2 or T3 accounted for the effects of T1 par-enting patterns on adolescent outcomes, using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four steps fortesting for mediation. The first test is already satisfied, namely that T1 parenting pat-terns predicted T3 outcomes, except for externalizing problems. The second test is thatT1 parenting patterns must predict the proposed mediator, in this case later parentingpatterns. Later parenting patterns were predicted by T1 patterns, but not perfectly.Thirty percent of parents remained in the same specific parenting pattern from T1 to T2,31% from T2 to T3, and 20% from T1 to T3, χ2 (36, Ns > 82) > 51.4, ps < .05. Stabilityacross adjacent waves varied in the following order: disengaged (50%), authoritative(50%), good enough (30%), democratic (29%), authoritarian (27%), permissive (23%),and directive (16%). Stability from T1 to T3 was generally lower (50%, 33%, 11%, 15%,17%, 11%, and 20%, respectively). In terms of supergroups, 51% remained in the samesupergroup from T1 to T2, 57% from T2 to T3, and 49% from T1 to T3, χ2 (4, Ns > 82) >14.2, ps < .01. Also, 64% of the balanced-committed and 58% of the imbalanced-uncom-mitted remained in their supergroups across adjacent waves. Only 30% of good enoughparents remained in that group, whereas 36% moved to balanced-committed and 34% toimbalanced-uncommitted. Stability from T1 to T3 was 65% for balanced-committed,55% for imbalanced-uncommitted, and only 11% for good enough parents.

To maintain sufficient statistical power, we used supergroups to implement the crucialthird test for partial mediation, namely whether either T2 or T3 supergroups predicted T3outcomes beyond that predicted by T1 supergroups. For brevity, Table 2 presents only theresults for the comprehensive outcome measures, but the results were similar for the sixspecific outcomes. T2 supergroups were never partial mediators because they did not pre-dict T3 outcomes beyond that predicted by T1 supergroups. T1 supergroups predicted ado-lescent outcomes more strongly than did T2 supergroups. T1 supergroups predicted bothcomprehensive outcomes significantly even after controlling for T2 supergroup effects, ΔR2

= .16 for general competence, p < .001, and ΔR2 = .08 for total problems, p < .05.In contrast, T3 supergroups partially mediated the effects of T1 supergroups,

because they predicted T3 outcomes significantly beyond that predicted by the T1supergroups in Baron and Kenny’s (1986) third test. The fourth test, however, failed to

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 22: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 177

support full mediation in that T1 supergroups continued to predict variance in the twocomprehensive T3 outcomes significantly beyond that predicted by the T3 super-groups. When T1 supergroups were entered last, the change in R2 was .07 for generalcompetence, p < .01, and .05 for total problems, p < .05.

Overall, T1 supergroups predicted T3 outcomes beyond that predicted by eitherintermediate or concurrent parenting supergroups. Although the effect of T1 parentingwas partially mediated by T3 parenting, there are also significant unique effects of pre-school parenting patterns on adolescent outcomes that are not attributable to the effectsof concurrent parenting.

Detrimental Power Assertion Versus Beneficial Power Assertion

The remaining analyses were designed to clarify which variables could account forthe distinctive adolescent outcomes of early parenting patterns. Of particular interestwere contrasts between the highly demanding parenting patterns that were associated

TABLE 2Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Later Parenting Supergroups as Possible Mediators of the Effects

of T1 Parenting Supergroups on Comprehensive T3 Adolescent Outcomes

General Competence Total Problems

Predictor Variable b ΔR2 b ΔR2

Step 1T1 Preexisting differencesa .09 .37*** .23***T1 Stanford-Binet IQ score .13 .09*

Step 2T1 Balanced-committed patternsbc .47*** −.34**T1 Good enough patternc .24* .21***d −.13 .09**d

Step 3T2 Balanced-committed patternsbc .14 −.09T2 Good enough patternc −.01 .02 −.09 .01

Step 1T1 Preexisting differencesa .09 .32** .26***T1 Stanford-Binet IQ score .11 .13**

Step 2T1 Balanced-committed patternsbc .33** −.28*T1 Good enough patternc .17e .18***d −.14 .08*d

Step 3T3 Balanced-committed patternsbc .53*** −.36***T3 Good enough patternc .27** .21*** −.29** .12***

Note. N = 82, with different missing families at T2 and T3. The bs are for the final model after Step 3, whereasthe changes in R2 are for the step in which those predictors were first added. T1 = Time 1. T2 = Time 2. T3 = Time 3.

aPreexisting differences were measured by the T1 variable of the same name.bAuthoritative, Democratic, and Directive parenting patterns.cThe imbalanced-uncommitted parenting patterns constituted the referent group for this indicator

(dummy) code.dThe change in R2 was also significant when the two indicator codes for T1 supergroups were entered

last, p < .05.ep < .10.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 23: Assertive Patterns

178 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

with beneficial (authoritative and directive) versus adverse (authoritarian) outcomes.Although these parenting patterns differed in responsiveness, the differences in thekinds of power assertion they used may also account for their notable differences inadolescent outcomes. The manner in which, rather than the extent to which, demand-ingness is expressed by authoritarian parents was expected to be detrimental.

Three sets of analyses served to identify the most detrimental forms of power assertionthat could account for the adverse outcomes of authoritarian parenting. These analysesalso served to identify kinds of power assertion that were beneficial or neutral when theywere not confounded with the detrimental forms of power assertion. Specifically, wefocused on possible differences in the effects of confrontive and coercive kinds of powerassertion, and of normative and severe physical punishment. We expected the effects ofconfrontive power assertion to be beneficial when not confounded with authoritarian-distinctive (coercive) kinds of power assertion, and the effects of normative physical pun-ishment to be neutral, in contrast with the adverse effects of severe physical punishment.

Power-assertive variables distinctive of authoritarian parents. The first set of analysesinvestigated our hypotheses that authoritarian parents would differ from other pre-school parenting patterns on the five kinds of power assertion considered coercive butnot on two forms of power assertion not considered coercive (confrontive disciplineand spanking). Parenting patterns were also compared on household management(a form of demandingness, but not of power assertion), and on promoting conformityand obedience (to measure social ideology).

Table 3 shows that differences between authoritarian and both authoritative and direc-tive parents on all five of the conceptually detrimental kinds of power assertion werelarge. Thus these five variables qualify as authoritarian-distinctive on empirical as well asconceptual grounds. The difference was more than 1 SD between authoritarian parentsand the average of authoritatives and directives on psychological control (a difference of1.2 SDs), unqualified power assertion (1.1 SD difference), verbal hostility (1.1 SD), andarbitrary discipline (1.2 SD). There was also a sizable difference on severe physical punish-ment (39% vs. 0%). Authoritarians differed significantly from authoritatives on all of thesevariables except for severe physical punishment and from directives on all except psycho-logical control, p < .05, using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference Test or Fisher’s ExactTest (only for the dichotomous variable for severe physical punishment). In contrast,authoritarians were indistinguishable from authoritative and directive parents on con-frontive discipline (–0.1 SD difference, ns) and on spanking (0.4 SD difference, ns). Author-itarians were lower also on household management than the mean of authoritatives anddirectives (–0.8 SD difference), but differed significantly only from authoritatives, p < .05.The parenting patterns also differed predictably on social ideology (see Table 3, promotesconformity), with authoritarian and directive parents the most conservative, permissiveand democratic parents the most liberal, and authoritative parents at the mean.

Outcomes of power-assertive variables with and without authoritarian parents. The secondset of analyses compared how strongly the adolescent outcomes were predicted by the T1power assertive variables after controlling for preexisting T1 differences, first in the fullsample and then after dropping authoritarian families from the analyses. Together theseanalyses tested our hypotheses that only the five authoritarian-distinctive forms of powerassertion would have adverse effects that generalized beyond authoritarian families. Thelast five columns of Table 4 list the standardized regression coefficients predicting the six

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 24: Assertive Patterns

179

TABL

E 3

Con

curr

ent P

aren

ting

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of P

resc

hool

Par

entin

g Pa

ttern

s

Pres

choo

l Pa

rent

ing

Styl

en

Con

fron

tive

Dis

cipl

inea

Hou

seho

ld

Man

agem

enta

Resp

onsi

vea

Unq

ualif

ied

Pow

er

Ass

ertio

naA

rbitr

ary

Dis

cipl

ine

Psyc

holo

gica

l C

ontr

ola

Ver

bal

Hos

tility

Tota

l Ph

ysic

al

Puni

shm

entb

Seve

re P

hysi

cal

Puni

shm

ent

(n)

Prom

otes

C

onfo

rmity

Aut

hori

tativ

e6

61.8

462

.06

55.4

447

.9−2

47.1

−244

.0−3

47.5

−150

.90

050

.1−1

Dem

ocra

tic17

49.4

−152

.11

58.0

443

.2−4

46.4

−243

.2−4

49.2

−146

.7−2

145

.8−2

Dir

ectiv

e15

59.2

454

.81

48.3

−156

.73

49.3

−256

.74

49.6

−153

.82

056

.03

Aut

hori

tari

an13

59.2

450

.21

39.9

−563

.46

60.1

562

.04

59.9

559

.33

559

.54

Goo

d en

ough

1747

.8−1

50.8

148

.3−1

49.1

045

.9−2

49.1

−246

.8−2

48.8

−10

45.8

−2Pe

rmis

sive

934

.3−6

38.7

−558

.44

41.2

−444

.9−2

47.4

−347

.8−1

42.6

−30

42.3

−3D

isen

gage

d10

40.6

−439

.1−5

40.4

−553

.81

62.6

560

.24

57.1

153

.31

152

.21

F(6,

80)

c87

33.3

2***

11.3

7***

19.1

3***

16.4

2***

7.67

***

14.1

0***

3.02

*4.

13**

20.5

3**d

6.46

***

Not

e. A

ll pa

rent

ing

char

acte

rist

ics

are

scal

ed s

o th

at M

= 5

0 an

d SD

= 1

0. T

he s

ubsc

ript

s sh

ow t

he n

et n

umbe

r of

sig

nific

ant

pair

wis

e co

mpa

riso

ns f

or e

ach

pare

ntin

g pa

ttern

on

each

par

entin

g ch

arac

teri

stic

, usi

ng F

ishe

r’s

leas

t sig

nfic

ant d

iffer

ence

pro

cedu

re, p

< .0

5. T

he s

ign

indi

cate

s w

heth

er th

at p

aren

ting

patte

rn is

asso

ciat

ed w

ith m

ostly

sig

nific

antly

hig

her (

+) o

r low

er (–

) lev

els

of th

at p

aren

ting

char

acte

rist

ic. F

or e

xam

ple,

the

subs

crip

t of 4

atta

ched

to th

e va

lue

of 6

1.8

in th

eup

per

left-

hand

cor

ner

of t

he t

able

ind

icat

es t

hat

auth

orita

tive

pare

nts

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly h

ighe

r th

an f

our

othe

r pa

rent

ing

patte

rns

on c

onfr

ontiv

e di

scip

line.

Subs

crip

ts a

re it

alic

ized

for a

ny m

ean

that

is b

oth

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her a

nd s

igni

fican

tly lo

wer

than

at l

east

one

oth

er m

ean.

a This

cha

ract

eris

tic, o

r a

maj

or c

ompo

nent

of i

t, lo

aded

at l

east

.60

on o

ne o

f the

sec

ond-

orde

r fa

ctor

s th

at p

rovi

ded

the

maj

or m

eans

of d

efin

ing

the

pare

ntin

gpa

ttern

s.b To

tal p

hysi

cal p

unis

hmen

t is t

he m

easu

re fo

r the

ent

ire

sam

ple,

whe

reas

nor

mat

ive

phys

ical

pun

ishm

ent i

s the

sam

e m

easu

re a

fter d

ropp

ing

the

7 pa

rent

s who

used

sev

ere

phys

ical

pun

ishm

ent.

c F(6,

77)

for p

rom

otes

con

form

ity.

d χ2 (6, N

= 8

7).

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1. **

*p <

.001

.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 25: Assertive Patterns

180 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

specific adolescent outcomes from the five authoritarian-distinctive power-assertive vari-ables after controlling for T1 covariates for (1) the full sample and (2) all families exceptauthoritarian families. In addition to preexisting differences on the outcome variablesand on IQ when warranted, the T1 covariates included externalizing problems to controlfor selection bias as a result of effects of child misbehavior in estimating the apparenteffects of the power assertive variables (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004).1

Findings reported in Table 4 show that verbal hostility was the most strongly associ-ated with adverse adolescent outcomes, followed by psychological control, severe phys-ical punishment, and arbitrary discipline. Using the full sample and controlling for T1covariates, verbal hostility (4 of 6 outcomes), psychological control (2 of 6 outcomes),arbitrary discipline (2 outcomes), and severe physical punishment (1 outcome) pre-dicted significantly adverse effects for one or more outcomes (all ps < .05). In contrast,unqualified power assertion failed to predict any adolescent outcome significantly.

There were fewer detrimental effects of these power assertive variables after authoritar-ian families were excluded. In the nonauthoritarian families, the number of significantlydetrimental effects dropped in half, resulting in two detrimental outcomes for verbal hos-tility, one each for psychological control and arbitrary discipline, ps < .05, and two margin-ally detrimental outcomes for severe physical punishment, ps < .10. After controlling forT1 preexisting differences and dropping authoritarian families, verbal hostility had thelargest mean detrimental effect size across the six outcomes (mean b = −.17, bottom row ofTable 4), followed by psychological control (mean b = −.15), severe physical punishment(mean b = −.15), and arbitrary discipline (mean b = −.09). Unqualified power assertion(mean b = .06) was no longer detrimental after dropping authoritarian families, and in facthad a marginally significant beneficial effect on communal competence.

Additional full-sample analyses revealed that only psychological control uniquely pre-dicted detrimental effects on any outcome after controlling for verbal hostility (on internaliz-ing problems and self-efficacy, p < .05). Severe physical punishment and arbitrary disciplinewere omitted from the comprehensive multiple regression analyses because they neveraccounted for significant additional variance beyond that predicted by verbal hostility.

In sharp contrast with the authoritarian-distinctive power-assertive variables (exceptfor unqualified power assertion), household management (a demandingness, but notpower-assertive variable) and confrontive discipline (a power-assertive demandingnessvariable) had mostly beneficial effects (see columns 1 and 2 of Table 4). After controllingfor relevant T1 variables, confrontive discipline and household management were eachsignificantly associated with beneficial outcomes on 4 of 6 outcomes in the nonauthoritar-ian subsample. We may thus conclude that there was only one beneficial effect of con-frontive discipline in the full sample because its beneficial effects were suppressed inauthoritarian families by the authoritarian-distinctive kinds of power assertion also usedin these families. In contrast, household management was associated with as many bene-ficial outcomes in the full sample as in the nonauthoritarian subsample, indicating thatauthoritarian parents were suppressing the positive effects of confrontive discipline, butnot of household management. This was because authoritarian parents were high on con-frontive discipline but were only average on household management (see Table 3).

1It was considered important to control for externalizing problems in analyses of power assertive vari-ables because of child effects on parental use of power assertion. It should be noted that the associations ofparenting patterns and supergroups with adolescent outcomes did not differ when we added T1 externaliz-ing problems as an additional covariate to the ANCOVAs in Table 1.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 26: Assertive Patterns

181

TABL

E 4

Stan

dard

ized

Reg

ress

ion

Coe

ffici

ents

Pre

dict

ing

Spec

ific

T3 O

utco

mes

Fro

m T

1 D

eman

ding

ness

Var

iabl

es W

ith a

nd W

ithou

t T1

Aut

hori

tari

an F

amili

es o

r W

ith a

nd W

ithou

t Fam

ilies

Usi

ng S

ever

e Ph

ysic

al P

unis

hmen

t, C

ontr

ollin

g fo

r T1

Cov

aria

tes

Aut

hori

tari

an-D

istin

ctiv

e Po

wer

Ass

ertio

n

T3 O

utco

me

(Sam

ple)

NC

onfr

ontiv

e D

isci

plin

eH

ouse

hold

M

anag

emen

tPh

ysic

al

Puni

shm

enta

Seve

re P

hysi

cal

Puni

shm

ent

Ver

bal

Hos

tility

Psyc

holo

gica

l C

ontr

olA

rbitr

ary

Dis

cipl

ine

Unq

ualif

ied

Pow

er A

sser

tion

Indi

vidu

atio

nb

Full

sam

ple

87.2

2*.2

6**

−.14

−.12

−.24

*−.

21e

−.03

−.14

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

.32*

*.2

6*−.

12−.

04−.

22e

−.14

.05

−.05

Self-

effic

acyb

Full

sam

ple

87.1

9e.2

8**

−.19

e−.

14−.

30**

−.33

**−.

20e

−.11

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

.27*

.30*

*−.

16−.

18−.

36**

*−.

27*

−.25

*−.

06C

ogni

tive

com

pete

nceb

Full

sam

ple

87.2

0e.2

7**

−.03

−.18

−.14

−.17

−.10

−.01

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

.30*

*.3

3**

.00

−.23

e−.

13−.

20−.

09.1

1C

omm

unal

com

pete

nce

Full

sam

ple

87.0

0.0

9−.

12−.

22*

−.27

**−.

18−.

22*

−.09

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

.19e

.14

−.03

−.20

e−.

15−.

02−.

04.2

2e

Exte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

msc

Full

sam

ple

87−.

17−.

21*

−.11

−.01

−.05

.10

.02

−.08

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

−.24

*−.

30**

−.11

.06

−.10

.12

.06

−.14

Inte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms

Full

sam

ple

87.0

5−.

09.1

7.1

8e.3

0**

.29*

*.2

5*.1

8e

No

auth

orita

rian

s74

−.08

−.11

.10

.17

.24*

.12

.16

.02

Mea

n co

effic

ient

sd

Full

sam

ple

87.1

2.2

0−.

09−.

14−.

20−.

21−.

14−.

08N

o au

thor

itari

ans

74.2

3.2

4−.

05−.

15−.

17−.

15−.

09.0

6

Not

e. Th

e st

anda

rdiz

ed c

oeffi

cien

ts a

re fr

om a

naly

ses

in w

hich

the

T3 o

utco

me

was

reg

ress

ed o

n th

e T1

dem

andi

ngne

ss v

aria

ble

indi

cate

d, c

ontr

ollin

g fo

r T1

pree

xist

ing

diffe

renc

es a

nd, w

here

app

licab

le, T

1 IQ

(for

3 o

utco

mes

) and

T1

exte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms.

a Inst

ead

of e

xclu

ding

aut

hori

tari

an f

amili

es, s

even

cas

es o

f se

vere

phy

sica

l pu

nish

men

t w

ere

excl

uded

fro

m t

he f

inal

ana

lyse

s, w

hich

con

stitu

ted

a te

st o

fno

rmat

ive

phys

ical

pun

ishm

ent w

ith n

= 8

0.b Th

ese

anal

yses

con

trol

led

for T

1 IQ

.c T1

ext

erna

lizin

g w

as th

e on

ly T

1 co

vari

ate

for t

his

outc

ome.

d Mea

n co

effic

ient

s w

ere

calc

ulat

ed a

fter r

ever

sing

the

sign

s fo

r the

pro

blem

out

com

es, s

o th

at p

ositi

ve c

oeffi

cien

ts a

lway

s in

dica

ted

bene

ficia

l ass

ocia

tions

and

nega

tive

coef

ficie

nts

alw

ays

indi

cate

d de

trim

enta

l ass

ocia

tions

.e p

< .1

0.*p

< .0

5. **

p <

.01.

***p

< .0

01.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 27: Assertive Patterns

182 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Normative physical punishment (spanking) never predicted adverse (or beneficial)outcomes after controlling for preexisting differences at T1. Using zero-order correla-tions for the six outcomes in Table 4, we obtained a median effect size (d = −.40, equiva-lent to r = −.20), similar to Gershoff’s (2002) median of d = −.42. (All coefficients havebeen adjusted so that a negative sign indicates an adverse effect.) However, as Table 4shows, those effect sizes became small and nonsignificant after controlling for preexist-ing differences on the outcomes (mean b = −.12). After we excluded parents who usedsevere physical punishment the effect sizes approached zero (mean b = −.05 in Table 4).

Comprehensive multiple regression analyses. In the third set of analyses, the most predic-tive power-assertive variables were included in a composite multiple regression analysisfor each outcome to test their effects while controlling for each other as well as the T1covariates. This provides an integrated, comprehensive summary of the distinctive effectsof contrasting power assertive variables. Just as confrontive discipline predicted benefi-cial outcomes for four of six adolescent outcomes after omitting authoritarian families(Table 4), we expected it to predict beneficial outcomes after controlling for the adverseeffects of verbal hostility and psychological control in the full sample. In support of thishypothesis, confrontive discipline predicted significantly higher levels for three of the fourcompetence outcomes (ps < .05) and marginally lower externalizing problems (p < .10, seeTable 5). In contrast, verbal hostility predicted lower levels of communal competence,individuation, and self-efficacy as well as higher internalizing problems (ps < .05). Psycho-logical control predicted lower self-efficacy and higher internalizing problems (ps < .05).

Social ideology. The parenting patterns differed as expected on social ideology asindicated by their emphasis on promoting conformity and obedience, with authoritarianparents the most conservative, permissive parents the most liberal, and authoritative

TABLE 5Effects of Confrontive Discipline, Verbal Hostility, and Psychological Control on Specific Adolescent

Outcomes

Predictor Variable

Communal Competence

Cognitive Competence Individuation Self-Efficacy

Externalizing Problems

Internalizing Problems

Preexisting differences

−.02 −.05 .06 .17a .28* .33**

IQ — .41** .38*** .30** — —Externalizing

problems−.29* −.01 .02 .01 — .04

Confrontive discipline

.06 .24* .27** .26** −.19a −.03

Verbal hostility −.24* −.12 −.22* −.24* −.08 .23*Psychological

control−.10 −.17 −.17 −.28** .17 .21*

R2 .20** .24** .30*** .39*** .13* .30***

Note. N = 87. Preexisting differences on outcomes were statistically controlled, as were IQ and earlierexternalizing problems, where applicable. IQ at T1 was included as a covariate for the outcomes it predictedsignificantly in preliminary analyses. The table displays standardized regression coefficients with all predic-tors in the analysis.

ap < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 28: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 183

parents at the mean. The patterns closest to authoritative parenting differed slightly,with directive parents more conservative and democratic parents more liberal.Although social ideology never predicted differential competencies, there was an asso-ciation of conservative social ideology with adolescent total problems (b = .20, p < .05)as a result of its confound with authoritarian parenting.

In sum, we identified distinctive power-assertive variables which unlike confrontivediscipline, spanking (normative physical punishment), and household managementcould account for the adverse effects of authoritarian parenting. The comprehensivemultiple regressions indicated that adolescents had better outcomes to the extent theirparents had used confrontive discipline but not verbal hostility or psychological con-trol during their preschool years.

DISCUSSION

The focal objective of this study was to differentiate among early power-assertive prac-tices and patterns of parental authority that contributed positively and negatively toadolescent outcomes in a normal population. We contrasted the effects of confrontiveversus coercive practices to account in part for the differential long-term effects ofauthoritative and authoritarian parenting patterns.

Narrative Summary of Results

Specific hypotheses tested the effects on adolescent competence (agentic and com-munal attributes) and emotional health (absence of internalizing and externalizingproblem behaviors) of (1) seven preschool parenting patterns that differ on commit-ment and balance between responsiveness and demandingness and (2) several pre-school power-assertive parenting practices which may contribute to the differentialeffects of those parenting patterns.

To help explain why children reared by authoritative and authoritative-like parents(directive and democratic) were consistently more competent and well-adjusted thanchildren reared by other parents we introduced the superordinate concepts of balanceand commitment. We theorized that both the balance between what parents requiredof children (demandingness) and how supportive they were (responsiveness), andtheir level of commitment (assessed as high levels of both responsiveness and forms ofdemandingness specified as beneficial) would be significant determinants of parents’success, as indicated by optimal competence and emotional health in their adolescentchildren. Because authoritative and authoritative-like parents were both the most bal-anced and the most committed we expected (and found) them to have the most compe-tent and well-adjusted children. By contrast, because authoritarian and permissiveparents were the least balanced, and disengaged parents the least committed, weexpected (and found) their children to be the least competent and least well-adjusted.

Adolescents had better outcomes, including higher agency, if their parents hadused relatively high behavioral control (confrontive discipline) during the preschoolyears, provided parents were also at least moderately responsive and autonomy-supportive and avoided verbal hostility and psychological control (that is, wereauthoritative or directive rather than authoritarian). We found no detrimental effectsof spanking and beneficial effects of confrontive discipline, except when confounded

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 29: Assertive Patterns

184 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

with detrimental forms of power assertion, as it is in authoritarian parenting. The pre-school parenting patterns lowest on behavioral control (permissive, disengaged) wereboth associated with lower competence. Permissive parents are highly responsive, butfail to use the two most beneficial forms of demandingness, differing from the averageof the other two highly responsive but more behaviorally controlling family types(authoritative and democratic) by more than 1 SD on confrontive discipline (2.1 SD)and household management (1.8 SD). Despite the unconditional acceptance, lenientpractices, and equalitarian values of their parents, adolescents from permissive fami-lies were almost 1 SD less autonomous (individuation and self-efficacy) than theirpeers from these two more confrontive families. As Iyengar and Lepper (2000) sug-gested, unconstrained freedom of choice may result in a sense of indeterminacy andgroundlessness, rather than empowerment and self-sufficiency. However, because atemperamentally timid child could be intimidated by the high emotional expressivitythat accompanies spirited confrontation (Goldstein & Rodnick, 1975), the level andkind of power used by parents should be titrated to match the vulnerability of theirchild (Rothbart, 2007).

Permissive parenting and authoritarian parenting may both lead to adverse adoles-cent outcomes because of the distinctive ways in which they differ from authoritativeparenting: Although diametrically opposed on social ideology reflected in theirdemanding and responsive parenting practices, authoritarian and permissive parentsboth minimize opportunities for children to learn how to cope successfully with chal-lenges, whether by assigning too many responsibilities, imposing functionally super-fluous rules and curtailing free interchange and children’s initiative as authoritarianparents do, or by giving children free rein and failing to enforce standards of interper-sonal cooperation and shared responsibilities or to provide sufficient structure as per-missive parents do (Baumrind, 1973). Consistent with their social ideology authoritarianparents rely on coercive forms of power assertion to maintain family hierarchy inwhich children are subordinate, whereas permissive parents in their reluctance toassert power are insufficiently confrontive, failing to provide needed authority, order,and regimen. By contrast, when parents are both autonomy-supportive and power-assertive they model as well as reinforce behavior that is both communal and agentic,qualities we observed in the adolescent children of balanced-committed parents.

Unique Effects of Preschool Parenting Patterns

The long-term effects of T1 supergroups on children’s competence and emotionalhealth were evident even after accounting for the effects of T3 supergroups, whichacted as a partial mediator of the preschool parenting effects. We suggest that thestrength of T1 parenting effects relative to T2 parenting effects may be the result ofgreater similarity and intensity in the challenges parents of preschool students facewith regard to issues of autonomy and self-determination. During their preschoolyears, when T1 assessments took place, toddlers develop a sense of an independent selfand are motivated to protect their perceived behavioral freedom by resisting parentalauthority. Toddler negativities have parallels in adolescence in that adolescents typi-cally strive to broaden an arena of personal freedom and sense of efficacy by directlycontesting or indirectly subverting parental authority (Smetana, 2005). How parentsnegotiate power shifts during the two challenging developmental periods of preschooland adolescence may have especially significant long-term effects, compared with the

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 30: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 185

relatively harmonious latency period when T2 assessments took place. Perhaps optimaldevelopment during latency depends more on factors such as proactive teaching andparent–child bonding. How parents assert power may be less important when childrenare rarely asserting their independence.

Accounting for the Differential Effects of Authoritarian and Authoritative Parenting

Conceived of as a gestalt, a parenting pattern is a totality made up of integratedpractices that interact in such a way as to confer properties that are not possessed by asum of its component practices (Magnusson, 2001; Mandara, 2003; Waller & Meehl,1998). Because the components of a gestalt obtain their character from the whole, differ-ent parenting patterns with similar levels of a particular component, such as confrontivediscipline, can have very different effects, depending on the level of other componentpractices, such as coercion.

Although the belief that all forms of power-assertive control can backfire (Grolnick,2003; McCord, 1996) has widespread support in European American parental theories,we found that, whereas coercive kinds of power-assertion were clearly detrimental,confrontive power-assertive disciplinary practices were not. In fact, we found that withthe detrimental effects of coercive forms of power assertion, in particular verbal hostil-ity and psychological control, held constant, T1 confrontive discipline (our measure ofbehavioral control) had moderately beneficial effects on 3 of 4 adolescent competencyoutcomes (βs of .24 to .27).

It is a likely consequence of their parents’ abuse of power by use of authoritarian-distinctive power-assertive practices that children of authoritarian parents manifestedlow communal competence, internalizing problems, and low self-esteem, whereaschildren of authoritative and directive parents who used, but did not abuse, powerwere prosocial and well-adjusted. In contrast with authoritarian parents, authoritativeparents, although equally confrontive, have a nuanced conception of compliance andnoncompliance, responding differently to destructive defiance that they will sanction,and rational resistance to their directives, which they may even encourage (see Dix,Stewart, Gershoff, & Day, 2007). In Lepper’s (1983) terms, authoritative parents tend touse “minimally sufficient” power to achieve their objectives. In contrast, authoritarianparents typically use harsh criticism, demeaning attacks, and severe physical punish-ment to suppress children’s initiative, and arbitrary regulations and psychological con-trol to discourage reciprocal interchanges. These “functionally superfluous” coerciveconstraints discourage their children’s autonomous attempts to initiate self-directedbehavior.

The beneficial effects of confrontive discipline on individuation and self-efficacy(see Tables 4 and 5) are noteworthy because confrontive discipline measures parents’readiness to persist in a demand even if this provokes conflict. Overt and forcefulrather than gentle or covert, confrontive discipline correlated positively with children’sautonomous self-assertion, significantly so in nonauthoritarian families. Although ado-lescents may chafe when their freedom is restricted, most accept as legitimate parents’right to regulate behavior that affects their own health or the well-being of others(Smetana, 2005), provided that confrontive parents are also flexibly responsive andjust. When confrontive parents are not coercive, that is are authoritative rather thanauthoritarian, their children tend to emulate, rather than to be intimidated by, theirparents’ assertiveness.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 31: Assertive Patterns

186 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Effects of Directive Parenting

The importance of distinguishing between authoritarian and directive kinds of par-ents is underlined by our findings that adolescents from directive families had signifi-cantly better outcomes than those from authoritarian families on all outcomes exceptfor externalizing problems (see Table 1). Directive parents were like authoritarian par-ents in being highly confrontive and ideologically conservative (see Table 3), but unlikeauthoritarian parents were moderately responsive and avoided severe levels of verbaland physical discipline. Our directive parents differ from Grolnick’s directive parents(2003, p. 9), who she describes as repressive and who undermine children’s initiative andsense of autonomy. We categorize such parents as authoritarian rather than as directive.

The training practices of Chinese American parents (Chao, 1994), the emphasis onprompt compliance by African American parents (Mandara, 2006; McLoyd, 1990), onrespect by Latin American parents (Halgunseth, Ispa, & Rudy, 2006; Harwood, 1992),and on deference by conservative European American parents are all culturally-syntonic practices that we would describe as confrontational, not coercive. The viewthat authoritarian-like parenting is optimal in some cultural contexts is probably refer-ring to what we speak of as directive parenting that may look authoritarian from amore democratic or permissive viewpoint because it is forceful and confrontational,but from our perspective is not authoritarian because it is also responsive and child-oriented. The directive style appears to be a universal parent style intended to promoteforms of competence consistent with a family’s particular circumstances and culturalideology pertaining to parental authority and children’s autonomy.

Is Spanking Harmful?

Some mental health professionals and scientists regard all punishment (that is,intentional application of aversive events to curb misbehavior), whether physical orpsychological, normative or severe, as inherently coercive and consequently harmful(e.g., Bee, 1998; Berger & Thompson, 1995; Cohen & Brook, 1995; Dix, 1991; Etaugh &Rathus, 1995; Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; McCord, 1996). Advocates of a positive-only approach to child behavior management (e.g., McCord, 1996; McGee, 1992) assertthat all punishment is more likely to alienate children and enhance the value of what isbeing forbidden than to increase the probability of a desired behavior. By contrast,other experts have concluded that normative punishment can be effective in suppress-ing misbehavior and these negative side effects can readily be minimized (Axelrod &Apsche, 1983; Patterson, 1982; Walters & Grusec, 1977). We found that negative sideeffects of punishment depended on how it was used, not on whether it was physical orverbal. Like any kind of punishment, spanking is intended to be aversive and isunpleasant to inflict as well as to receive, and like punishment of any kind, should beused only when its estimated benefits outweigh these costs. Singling out spanking forcensure obscures the fact that all punishment causes pain and so must be justified bythe ends it is expected to achieve.

When the distinction between normative and severe physical punishment is blurred,their possible differential effects cannot be identified. All physical punishment hasbeen marked by Gershoff (2002) and Straus (2001) as singularly unethical and harmful.However, the validity of most of the primary studies in Gershoff’s review havebeen challenged (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005) on

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 32: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 187

methodological grounds that include reliance on correlational evidence and retrospec-tive recall, reporting and selection biases, and failures to account for cultural modera-tors (see Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Simons, Wu, Lin,Gordon, & Conger, 2000), to contrast the outcomes of physical punishment with thoseof other disciplinary enforcers, and to distinguish between the effects of spanking andsevere physical punishment.

We found detrimental effects of severe physical punishment, but no significanteffects, either detrimental or beneficial, of normative physical punishment (spanking).The most successful (that is, authoritative) parents were average in their use of spank-ing, whereas the least successful supergroup included both permissive parents whoused the least physical punishment, and authoritarian parents who used the most(Table 3). Supporting the differentiation we made between effects of normative andsevere physical punishment, a genetically informed study concluded that, in contrastwith severe physical punishment, the apparent detrimental outcomes associated withnormative physical punishment are due not to spanking but instead to shared geneticinfluences (Lynch et al., 2006).

Our results are consistent with a recent synthesis of the literature wherein Roberts(2008) concluded that, in contrast with inconsistent, unpredictable discipline and inter-mittent reinforcement of child coercion (tantrums, hitting, rude talk), spanking fre-quency is not a cause of deviant child outcomes. We found psychological control andverbal hostility to be more strongly associated than total physical punishment withadverse adolescent attributes. Perhaps this was because manipulative rebukes andwounding words more clearly conveyed rejection in our sample. Rohner and col-leagues (Rohner, Bourque, & Elordi, 1996; Rohner, Kean, & Cournoyer, 1991) reportedthat in two communities where moderately severe physical punishment is culturallynormative through adolescence, youths’ perceived harshness of physical punishmentwas associated with self-reported psychological maladjustment only when construedby the youth as parental rejection.

The hurt feelings and loss of self-esteem from wounding words may be more perma-nent than the transitory pain inflicted by a spanking. Graziano (1994) found that almosthalf of middle-class children reported little or no physical pain during physical punish-ment. Larzelere, Silver, and Polite (1997) reported that, when combined with reasoning(which optimized effectiveness), physical punishment averaged only a slightly higherlevel of moderate distress in preschool students than did nonphysical punishment, anddid so for a shorter period of time (Ms of 4.2 min vs. 5.2 min). The relatively low level ofdistress of spanking may explain why, when working-class Australian children(M ages 8.5, 12, and 17 years) were asked to evaluate the “rightness” of mothers’ (Siegal& Cowen, 1984) and fathers’ (Siegal & Barclay, 1985) disciplinary tactics, they favoredphysical punishment as well as explanation over love-withdrawal and permissiveness.The use of physical punishment, however, is, and is likely to remain, a subject of vigor-ous debate among researchers and professionals (Baumrind, 1996a; Bitensky, 1997;Durrant, 2008; Garbarino, 1996; Gershoff, 2002; Gordon, 1970; Graziano, 1994; Holden,2002; Hyman, 1990, 1996; Larzelere, 2008; Newberger, 1999; Straus, 2001).

Causal Relevance of Results: Strengths and Limitations

We evaluate the strengths and limitations of our observational study by the causalrelevance of our results in accord with six epidemiological causality criteria included in

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 33: Assertive Patterns

188 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

the list proposed by Hill (1965) and cited by experts such as Shadish, Cook, andCampbell (2002): (1) temporality, (2) strength of association, (3) control of confoundsthreatening internal validity, (4) control of confounds threatening external validity,(5) control of measurement error, and (6) empirical and theoretical coherence.

Temporality. Because power-assertive responses are a likely reaction to a child whohas misbehaved, time-ordered data are essential to infer cause from correlationalstudies of the relation between parents’ power-assertive practices and children’sattributes. Our results are time-ordered, with parenting being measured 10 yearsbefore assessment of adolescents’ competence and adjustment.

Strength of association. The average of the three balanced-committed parenting patternsproduced adolescent outcomes that were a full standard deviation (d = 1.05) better thanthose of authoritarian parents and substantially better than those of permissive parents(d = 0.68), averaging across all six specific outcomes in Table 1. Thus, many supergroupeffect sizes approached or exceeded Cohen’s (1988) large effect size of d = 0.80, increasingconfidence that early parenting has important predictable long-term effects.

Control of confounds threatening internal validity. Internal validity implies validity ofcausal inference for the sample studied, which requires control of selection bias anddistortions introduced by confounds. All of our analyses of parenting effects on adoles-cent outcomes controlled statistically for preexisting differences on the outcomes. Bycontrolling for preschool precursors, the net effects analyses provided stronger causalevidence. In addition, the analyses of power-assertive variables controlled for earlierexternalizing problems, because they represent the kinds of dysfunctional behaviorthat provoke power-assertive interventions by parents. IQ was also statistically con-trolled when warranted. However, as authoritative critics (e.g. Freedman, 1991, 1997)of the use of regression equations to infer causality contend, observational researchcannot be causally conclusive because statistical adjustments in net effects analysesdepend upon many unverified assumptions, and may reduce but cannot eliminate thebias associated with likely confounds (Campbell & Boruch, 1975; McKim & Turner,1997; Rothman & Greenland, 1998). Furthermore, without control for potential geneticinfluences other than IQ, we could not rule out common genetically based factorsrather than parental influences as accounting for our parent–child associations.

Control of confounds threatening external validity. For many study objectives, includingours, an ecologically valid observational study that uses high-quality independent datasources to predict outcomes from past happenings is the most feasible scientific optionfor providing causally relevant evidence applicable to real world events. The inten-tional homogeneity of the FSP sample minimizes factors other than parenting thatcould otherwise account for differences in child outcomes but also limits generalizationof findings to broad demographic and cultural contexts.

Control of measurement error. Any scientific claim, including a causal one, is predi-cated on the reliability and validity of measures used to obtain data. Thus, control ofmeasurement error, which is necessary for producing reliable and valid data, is criticalfor establishing the causal relevance of any scientific findings. We were able to minimizemany of the method and rater biases that have introduced error in previous studies of

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 34: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 189

the effects of power-assertive practices. FSP archives provided multimethod data, distinctdata sources on parents and children, and different items reflecting a wide variety ofpower-assertive practices that are often treated as similar. Naturally-occurring events inthe home and school were broadly sampled and structured observations were specificallydesigned to elicit diverse kinds of power-assertive parental interventions. Trained observ-ers based their ratings of parents’ power-assertive practices on complete transcripts ofhome visits, structured observations and standardized intensive interviews. Thus, FSPdata sources used in this study provided exceptionally comprehensive, valid, and reliableassessments of children’s characteristics and parents’ handling of disciplinary encounters.

Empirical and theoretical coherence. Our findings concerning the effects of parentingpatterns, and specifically the benefits of the balanced-committed authoritative patternrelative to the imbalanced permissive or authoritarian patterns on the development ofchildren and adolescents, are theoretically coherent and consistent with earlier reports(e.g., Baumrind, 1968a, 1971a, 1978d, 1983, 1989, 1991a, 1991b; Dornbusch et al., 1987;Lamborn, et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996). The differentia-tions we made in this study between beneficial and detrimental forms of both strict andlenient childrearing patterns offer both conservative (authoritarian and directive) andliberal (permissive and democratic) parents ideologically compatible styles of parentalauthority that can generate optimal outcomes (directive and democratic). On the basisof intensive observational data, our findings concerning the long-term differentialeffects of coercive and confrontive kinds of power-assertive disciplinary practices sup-port the findings of Barber (2002a, 2002b), Hoffman (1975), and Patterson (1997) thatbehavioral control is associated positively with children’s cognitive competence andsense of agency, whereas the coercive forms of power assertion we refer to as authori-tarian-distinctive are harmful.

Future Directions for Socialization Research

Application of scientific findings to social policy concerns would be significantlyadvanced by greater use of naturalistic observation of children interacting with familiaradults over prolonged periods of time in real-life settings (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder,2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Observational studies conducted in real-life settings are likelyto continue to depend largely on correlational rather than experimental data. Net effectsanalytic methods improve the validity of causally relevant conclusions from correlationaldata to some extent, but are not causally conclusive (McKim & Turner, 1997). Unbiasedcausal inferences from net-effects analyses require comprehensive and perfectly reliablemeasures of all relevant confounds. The quality and comprehensiveness of measures ofpossible confounds are crucial for approximating this ideal. Statistical adjustments basedon propensity scores can combine many covariates efficiently and yield importantdiagnostics (Haviland, Nagin, Rosenbaum, & Tremblay, 2008). Alternative analyses, suchas analyses of simple gain scores and temporally reversed analyses, can differentiatecausal effects from artifactual findings (Larzelere, Ferrer, Kuhn, & Danelia, 2010).Increased use of sophisticated causal modeling procedures (see Glymour, 1997) and high-quality observational data would strengthen the causal relevance of future socializationresearch using correlational analyses to address issues of causation through hypothesisdisconfirmation (Popper, 1974). The distinction we make between coercive and confron-tive power assertive disciplinary practices is important to pursue in contemporary cultural

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 35: Assertive Patterns

190 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

contexts, with longitudinal observational studies, to explain how authoritarian parentingpractices impair, but authoritative practices improve, children’s developmental outcomes.

Spanking continues to be a controversial practice, as is an injunction against its use.Injunctions against the use of any practice favored by parents may disempower parents(see Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989), undermining power-assertive parenting practices(confrontive discipline) or patterns (authoritative and directive) found to have long-termbenefits in this study. Careful study of the long-term consequences of a legal ban onspanking in the 26 countries that have done so (Center for Effective Discipline, 2010) by acollaborative team with a range of perspectives could determine whether an unintendedconsequence of an injunction against spanking is greater use of verbal attacks and psy-chological control by frustrated parents, and helplessness in the face of children’s unrea-sonable demands by disempowered parents (Patterson & Fisher, 2002, p. 74).

Directive and democratic parenting are two forms of adequately balanced and com-mitted parenting that appear nearly as beneficial as authoritative parenting, whereasauthoritarian and permissive parenting devoid of either responsiveness or enforceablelimits, and disengaged parenting devoid of both, may have adverse effects in any cul-tural context (also see Baumrind 1971b; 1972). Although, insofar as we know, the dis-tinctive positive effects of the directive style have not been reported previously in aEuropean American middle-class population, they are consistent with published find-ings of investigators such as Chao (1994), Deater-Deckard and Dodge (1997), Harwood(1992), and Mandara (2006), who found beneficial effects of directive variants (highlydemanding and engaged but not promotive of autonomy) on children and adolescentsin diverse (e.g., Asian, Puerto Rican, and African American) cultural contexts. Furtherresearch identifying instances of the democratic style of leadership in cultural contextsother than European American middle-class families of the kind we sampled areneeded to assess generalizability of its effects.

Drawing on an extensive corpus of research that included culturally diverse samples(Baumrind, 1972; Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; Cowan, Powell, & Cowan, 1998; Steinberget al., 1992), Steinberg (2001) concluded that “the benefits of authoritative parentingtranscend the boundaries of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and household composi-tion” (p. 12). However, as Mandara (2006) noted, Baumrind’s typology was conceivedspecifically for the purpose of differentiating among children who were reared in mid-dle-class European American families. To decide if there is a universal natural familytypology, or universally better and worse ways of rearing children, we must first iden-tify indigenous family patterns specific to a variety of cultural contexts (Mandara &Murray, 2002). Finding similarities in indigenously derived parenting patterns wouldsupport a universal typology, and possibly universally effective and ineffective ways ofrearing children. It is surprising that, however, we were unable to locate current empir-ical studies of long-term effects of early parenting styles to compare with our findings.Such future studies would reveal whether or not the optimal ratio of responsiveness todemandingness and of freedom to control are invariant across developmental stages,secular conditions, and social ideologies.

AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Diana Baumrind, University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Human Develop-ment, 1121 Tolman Hall #1690, Berkeley, CA 94720. Robert E. Larzelere is at

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 36: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 191

Oklahoma State University (E-mail: [email protected]), and Elizabeth B.Owens is at the University of California, Berkeley.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are pleased to acknowledge the consistent and generous support of theWilliam T. Grant Foundation for the Family Socialization and Developmental Compe-tence longitudinal program of research that provided the archival data on which theseanalyses are based. The National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute ofDrug Abuse, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation also contributedsupport to that research. The authors thank the excellent staff of psychologists whocontributed to the collection and coding of the data, and in particular to NadiaSorkhabi who took a leadership role in their training and together with EllenMiddaugh in writing the manual containing the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scales. Theauthors also thank Gail Smith and Ketevan Danelia for their statistical analyses. Aboveall, they thank the parents who shared their experiences and ideas about parenting andthe teachers who contributed knowledge of the children under their care.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child BehaviorProfile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry.

Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on achild’s mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965–978.

Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (Eds.). (1983). The effects of punishment on human behavior. New York: Academic Press.Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development in childhood. New York: Dryden.Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67,

3296–3319.Barber, B. K. (2002a). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.Barber, B. K. (2002b). Reintroducing parental psychological control. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting:

How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 3–13). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and ado-lescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents(pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioralcontrol and youth internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120–1136.

Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioralcontrol: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 70, 1–137.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. (1995). Family and child factors in stability and change in children’saggressiveness in elementary school. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives(pp. 124–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 37: Assertive Patterns

192 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and fingermovements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.Baumrind, D. (1967). Childcare practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology

Monographs, 75, 43–88.Baumrind, D. (1968a). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255–271.Baumrind, D. (1968b). Preschool Behavior Q-sort. Unpublished manual.Baumrind, D. (1971a). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1–103.Baumrind, D. (1971b). Harmonious parents and their preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 4, 99–102.Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some black-white

comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261–267.Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. Pick (Ed.),

Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3–46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Baumrind, D. (1978a). Adolescent Q-sort. Unpublished manual.Baumrind, D. (1978b). Adolescent Rating Scales. Unpublished manual.Baumrind, D. (1978c). A dialectical materialist’s perspective on knowing social reality. New Directions for

Child Development, 2, 61–82.Baumrind, D. (1978d). Reciprocal rights and responsibilities in parent–child relations. Journal of Social Issues,

34, 179–196.Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewis’s reinterpretation of parental firm control effects: Are authoritative

parents really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 132–142.Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow

(pp. 349–378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Baumrind, D. (1991a). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. E. Cowan & E. M.

Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research (pp. 111–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Baumrind, D. (1991b). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.Baumrind, D. (1996a). A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data.

Pediatrics, 98, 828–831.Baumrind, D. (1996b). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405–414.Baumrind, D. (2005). Taking a stand in a morally pluralistic society: Constructive obedience and responsible

dissent in moral/character education. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Conflict, contradiction, and contrarian elements inmoral development and education (pp. 21–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence inpreschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291–327.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Commenton Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580–589.

Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman(Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 169–208). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bee, H. (1998). Lifespan development (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Berger, K. S., & Thompson, R. A. (1995). The developing person through childhood and adolescence (4th ed.).

New York: Worth.Bitensky, S. H. (1997). Spare the rod, embrace our humanity: Toward a new legal regime prohibiting corporal

punishment of children. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31, 353–474.Brazelton, T. B. (1992). On becoming a family (rev. ed.). New York: Delacorte Press/Lawrence.Bremner, J. D., Vermetten, E., & Mazure, C. M. (2000). Development and preliminary psychometric proper-

ties of an instrument for the measurement of childhood trauma: The early trauma inventory. Depressionand Anxiety, 12, 1–12.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bugental, D. B., Blue, J. B., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications

for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539.Campbell, D. T., & Boruch, R. F. (1975). Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by consid-

ering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-experimental evaluations in compensatory education tendto underestimate effects. In C. A. Bennett & A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experiment: Some criticalissues in assessing social programs (pp. 195–296). New York: Academic Press.

Center for Effective Discipline. (2010). Legal reforms: Corporal punishment of children in the family. RetrievedJune 4, 2010, from http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=laws-main

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 38: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 193

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chineseparenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.

Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritarian and authoritative parenting practices and social andschool performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855–873.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cohen, P., & Brook, J. S. (1995). The reciprocal influence of punishment and child behavior disorder. In

J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 154–164). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Differential parenting and change in sibling differences in delinquency.Journal of Family Research in Rural Mental Health, 8, 287–302.

Cowan, P. A., Powell, D., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Parenting interventions: A family systems perspective. InW. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Childpsychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 3–72). New York: Wiley.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,113, 487–496.

Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth tochild outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44–58.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited:Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 161–175.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. PsychologicalBulletin, 110, 3–25.

Dix, T. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathic goals in the regulation of responsive parenting. InI. E. Siegel, A. V. McGillicuddy-Delisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: The psychologicalconsequences for children (2nd ed., pp. 319–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dix, T., Stewart, A. D., Gershoff, E. T., & Day, W. H. (2007). Autonomy and children’s reactions to beingcontrolled: Evidence that both compliance and defiance may be positive markers in early development.Child Development 78, 1204–1221.

Dobson, J. (1992). The new dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of

parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.Durrant, J. E. (2008). Physical punishment, culture, and rights: Current issues for professionals. Journal of

Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 29, 55–66.Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal punishment.

American Sociological Review, 58, 131–144.Etaugh, C., & Rathus, S. A. (1995). The world of children. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Eyberg, S., Nelson, M., & Boggs, S. (2008). Evidence-based psychosocial treatment for children and adoles-

cents with disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 215–237.Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. In P. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology.

Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Freedman, D. A. (1997). From association to causation via regression. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 18,

59–110.Friedman, S., & Schonberg, S. K. (1996). The short- and long-term consequences of corporal punishment.

Pediatrics, 98(Suppl.), 857–858.Garbarino, J. (1996). CAN reflections on 20 years of searching. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 157–160.Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Parental corporal punishment and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-

analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.Glymour, C. (1997). A review of recent work on the foundations of causal inference. In V. R. McKim & S. P.

Turner (Eds.), Causality in crisis?: Statistical methods and the search for causal knowledge in the social sciences(pp. 201–248). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Goldstein, M. J., & Rodnick, E. H. (1975). The family’s contribution to schizophrenia: Current status.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 48–63.

Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior: A longitudinalinvestigation of the impact of relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of adoles-cent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41, 401–413.

Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training: The “no-lose” program for raising responsible children. Oxford, UK:Wyden.

Gordon, T. (1989). Teaching children self-discipline. New York: Random House.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 39: Assertive Patterns

194 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Graziano, A. M. (1994). Why we should study subabusive violence against children. Journal of InterpersonalViolence, 9, 412–419.

Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in early development of disrup-tive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191–213.

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determinationtheory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values:A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York: Wiley.

Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parentalspanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768–775.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liber-als may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.

Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review ofthe literature. Child Development, 77, 1282–1297.

Harwood, R. L. (1992). The influence of culturally derived values on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers’perceptions of attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822–839.

Hasebe, Y., Nucci, L., & Nucci, M. S. (2004). Parental control of the personal domain and adolescent symp-toms of psychopathology: A cross-national study in the U.S. and Japan. Child Development, 75, 815–828.

Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society ofMedicine, 58, 295–300.

Hirshfeld, D. R., Biderman, J., Brody, L., Faraone, S. V., & Rosenbaum, J. (1997). Associations betweenexpressed emotion and child behavioral inhibitions and psychopathology: A pilot study. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 205–213.

Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent–child interaction.Developmental Psychology, 11, 228–239.

Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral internalization: An information processingapproach. In E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A socio-cultural perspective (pp. 236–274). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1988). Moral development. In M. Bornstein, M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbookof motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 244–280). New York: Guilford Press.

Holden, G. W. (2002). Perspectives on the effects of corporal punishment. Comment on Gershoff (2002).Psychological Bulletin, 128, 590–595.

Hyman, I. A. (1990). Reading, writing, and the hickory stick: The appalling story of physical and psychological abusein American schools. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.

Hyman, I. A. (1996). Using research to change policy: Reflections on 20 years of effort to eliminate corporalpunishment in the schools. Pediatrics, 98, 818–821.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.

Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Skodol, A. E., Brown, J., & Oldham, J. M. (2001). Childhood verbalabuse and risk for personality disorders during adolescence and early adulthood. Comprehensive Psychiatry,42, 16–23.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of attachment: Multiplepathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597–615.

Kochanska, G., Padavich, D. L., & Koenig, A. L. (1996). Children’s narratives about hypothetical moral dilem-mas and objective measures of their conscience: Mutual relations and socialization antecedents. ChildDevelopment, 67, 1420–1436.

Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional parenting: Moving from rewards and punishments to love and reason. New York:Atria Books.

Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children’s non-compliance strategies from toddler-hood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26, 298–408.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjust-ment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. ChildDevelopment, 61, 1049–1065.

Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., et al. (2005). Cultural norma-tiveness as a moderator of the link between physical discipline and children’s adjustment: A comparisonof China, India, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, and Thailand. Child Development, 76, 1234–1246.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 40: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 195

Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting: A conditional sequence modelof disciplinary responses. In J. C. Westman (Ed.), Parenthood in America: Undervalued, underpaid, under siege(pp. 81–89). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Larzelere, R. E. (2008). Disciplinary spanking: The scientific evidence [Letter to the editor]. Journal of Develop-mental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 29, 334–335.

Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., Kuhn, B. R., & Danelia, K. (2010). Differences in casual estimates from longitudinalanalyses of residualized versus simple gain scores: Contrasting controls for selection and regression arti-facts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 180–189.

Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternativedisciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37.

Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias: An under-recognizedconfound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289–303.

Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior atdifferent levels of child distress. Family Relations, 43, 480–488.

Larzelere, R. E., Sather, P. R., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1998). Punishment enhancesreasoning’s effectiveness as a disciplinary response to toddlers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 388–403.

Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effects of discipline responses indelaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 35–57.

Larzelere, R. E., Silver, C., & Polite, K. (1997). Nonabusive spanking: Parental liberty or child abuse?Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 17(4), 7–17.

Lepper, M. (1983). Social control processes, and the internalization of social values: An attributional perspec-tive. In E. T. Higgins, D. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social behavior: Developmentalperspectives (pp. 294–330). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C. C. (1981). The effects of parental firm control: A reinterpretation of findings. Psychological Bulletin,90, 547–563.

Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis & W. W. Lambert (Eds.),

Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 143–204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Lynch, S. K., Turkheimer, E., D’Onofrio, B. M., Mendle, J., Emery, R. E., Slutske, W. S., et al. (2006). A geneti-

cally informed study of the association between harsh punishment and offspring behavioral problems.Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 190–198.

Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. DevelopmentalPsychology, 26, 683–697.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. InE. M. Hetherington (Ed.) & P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

Magnusson, D. (2001). The holistic–interactionistic paradigm: Some directions for empirical developmentalresearch. European Psychologist, 61, 153–162.

Mandara, J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family psychology: A review of theory, methods,and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 129–146.

Mandara, J. (2006). The impact of family functioning on African American males’ academic achievement: Areview and clarification of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 10, 205–222.

Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002). Development of an empirical typology of African American family func-tioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 318–337.

McCord, J. (1996). Unintended consequences of punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 832–834.McGee, J. J. (1992). Gentle teaching’s assumptions and paradigm. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,

869–872.McKim, V. R., & Turner, S. P. (1997). Causality in crisis?: Statistical methods and the search for causal knowledge in

the social sciences. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress,

parenting and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.Moore, T. E., & Pepler, D. J. (2006). Wounding words: Maternal verbal aggression and children’s adjustment.

Journal of Family Violence, 21, 89–93.Newberger, E. (1999). The men they will become: The nature and nurture of male character. Reading, MA: Perseus

Books.Nucci, L. (1996). Morality and personal sphere of actions. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values

and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 41: Assertive Patterns

196 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process: Vol. 3. A social learning approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.Patterson, G. R. (1997). Performance models for parenting: A social interactional perspective. In J. Grusec &

L. Kuczynski (Eds.), The handbook of parenting and the transmission of values. New York: Wiley.Patterson, G. R., & Fisher, P. A. (2002). Recent developments in our understanding of parenting: Bidirectional

effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.Power, T. G., & Chapieski, M. L. (1986). Childrearing and impulse control in toddlers: A naturalistic investi-

gation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 271–275.Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56,

205–217.Roberts, M. W. (2008). Parent training. In M. Hersen & A. M. Gross (Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology,

Vol. 2: Children and adolescents. (pp. 653–693). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Roberts, M. W., & Powers, S. W. (1990). Adjusting chair timeout enforcement procedures for oppositional

children. Behavior Therapy, 21, 257–271.Rohner, R. P., Bourque, S. L., & Elordi, C. A. (1996). Children’s perceptions of corporal punishment, caretaker

acceptance, and psychological adjustment in a poor, biracial Southern community. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 58, 842–852.

Rohner, R. P., & Britner, P. A. (2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental acceptance-rejection:Review of cross-cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of ComparativeSocial Science, 36, 15–47.

Rohner, R. P., Kean, K. J., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1991). Effects of corporal punishment, perceived caretakerwarmth, and cultural beliefs on the psychological adjustment of children in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journalof Marriage and Family, 53, 681–693.

Rosemond, J. K. (1994). To spank or not to spank. Kansas City, MO: Andrews & McMeel.Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 16, 207–212.Rothman, K. J., & Greenland, S. (1998). Causation and causal inference. In K. J. Rothman & S. Greenland

(Eds.), Modern epidemiology. (pp. 7–28). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child

Development, 63, 1–19.Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59,

226–235.Schaefer, E. S. (1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting

Psychology, 29, 552–557.Seipp, C. M., & Johnston, C. (2005). Mother-son interactions in families of boys with attention-deficit/hyper-

activity disorder with and without oppositional behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 87–98.Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design from general-

ized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Siegal, M., & Barclay, M. S. (1985). Children’s evaluations of fathers’ socialization behavior. Developmental

Psychology, 21, 1090–1096.Siegal, M., & Cowen, J. (1984). Appraisals of intervention: The mother’s versus the culprit’s behavior as deter-

minants of children’s evaluations of discipline techniques. Child Development, 55, 1760–1766.Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental

involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 591–607.Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Lin, K., Gordon, L., & Conger, R. D. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of the link

between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 38, 47–79.Smetana, J. G. (2005). Adolescent–parent conflict: Resistance and subversion as developmental process. In

L. Nucci (Ed.), Conflict, contradiction, and contrarian elements in moral development and education (pp. 69–91).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Solomon, C. R., & Serres, F. (1999). Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s self-esteem and schoolmarks. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 339–351.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R.Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 42: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 197

Steinberg, L. (2005). Psychological control: Style or substance? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Develop-ment, 108, 71–78.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academicsuccess among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices onadolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed.Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.

Stevens, G., & Cho, J. H. (1985). Socioeconomic indexes and the new 1980 Census Occupational Classificationscheme. Social Science Research, 14, 142–169.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 41, 75–88.

Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J. (2003). Psychological aggression by American parents: National data on preva-lence, chronicity, and severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 795–808.

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behaviorand impulsiveness of children [Special issue]. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16, 353–374.

Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on preva-lence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review, 2, 55–70.

Stubbe, D. E., Zahner, G. E. P., Goldstein, M. J., & Leckman, J. F. (1993). Diagnostic specificity of a brief mea-sure of expressed emotion: A community study of children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34,139–154.

Teicher, M. H., Samson, J. A., Polcari, A., & McGreenery, C. E. (2006). Sticks, stones, and hurtful words: Rela-tive effects of various forms of childhood maltreatment. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 993–1000.

Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third Revision Form LM.Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.

Tryon, R. C., & Bailey, D. E. (1966). The BC TRY computer system of cluster and factor analysis. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 1, 95–111.

Vostanis, P., Nicholls, J., & Harrington, R. (1994). Maternal expressed emotion in conduct and emotionaldisorders of childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 365–376.

Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walters, G. C., & Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco: Freeman.Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.,

T. Parsons, Ed.) New York: Free Press.Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’

personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114.Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.Wright, R. H., & Cummings, N. A. (Eds.). (2005). Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to

harm. New York: Routledge.Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1968). Child rearing: An inquiry into research and methods.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 43: Assertive Patterns

198 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

APPENDIX AT3-Specific Adolescent Outcomes With Up to Eight Representative Items

(1) Cognitive competence (12 items, a = .96)Item Item-total correlation

Seeks intellectual challenge .90Perseveres intellectually .88Challenges self intellectually .88Actively strives for excellence .86Interested in school success .85Exerts intellectual effort .84Does well in school .82Intrinsically motivated intellectually .82

(2) Communal competence (29 items, a = .97)Item Item-total correlation

Facilitative .85Dependable, trustworthy .84Considerate of others .83Accepts responsibility for consequences .83Self-contained .80Benevolent .79Amiable .75Can delay gratification .75

(3) Individuated (14 items, a = .94)Item Item-total correlation

Interesting, arresting personality .90Possesses sense of identity .86Interesting conversationalist .82Expresses self articulately .81Communicates clearly .78Has personal standards .77Consciously examines life .76Mature .70

(4) Self-efficacy (5 items, a=.87)Item Item-total correlation

Lacks self respect (–) .89Lacks confidence with parents (–) .75Lacks confidence with adults (–) .71Lacks cognitive confidence (–) .65Lacks confidence with peers (–) .50

(5) Externalizing problem behavior (8 items, a =.90)Item Item-total correlation

Engages in dangerous exploits .82Delinquent behavior .81Dropout mentality or lifestyle .80Antisocial peer group .76Hostile to adults outside the home .58Doesn’t feel guilty after misbehaving .58Sexually active, promiscuous .57Unusually independent .54

(Continued)

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 44: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 199

APPENDIX B T1 Parent Variables With Up to Eight Representative Items

APPENDIX A(Continued)

(6) Internalizing problem behavior (12 items, a = .89)Item Item-total correlation

Self-pitying .77Excessive worrying, insecure .77Suffers mental anguish .71Feels worthless .69Pessimistic world view .66Emotionally labile (moody) .61Unhappy in school .59Socially deviant .54

Section I: Items obtained from Likert-type scales (Mother and Father Preschool Rating Scales and Family Behavior Problem Checklist)(1) Confrontive discipline (12 items, a = .92)

Item Item-total correlationConfronts when child disobeys .79Cannot be coerced by child .77Successfully exerts force or influence .75Enforces after initial noncompliance .72Exercises power unambivalently .72Uses negative sanctions freely .71Discourages defiant stance .69Demands child’s attention .67

(2) Household managementRequires household help (5 items, a = .85)Item Item-total correlation

Demands child put toys away .77Discourages obstructive behavior .70Demands child clean own messes .69Sets regular tasks .61Encourages self-help .48

Maintains structure and regimen (4 items, a = .71)Item Item-total correlation

Regimen set for child .59Fixed bedtime hour .50Restricts TV viewing .49Requires well-balanced diet .48

(3) Responsive (7 items, a = .87)Item Item-total correlation

Disciplines supportively .79Encourages intimate verbal contact .73Remains open when child disagrees .69Responsive to child’s bids for closeness .63Approachable and available to child .59Warm .59Listens to child’s critical comments .56

(Continued)

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 45: Assertive Patterns

200 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS

APPENDIX B (Continued)

(4) Unqualified power assertion (6 items, a = .78)Item Item-total correlation

Discourages verbal give and take .68Gives directives without reasons .60Disobedience does not elicit reasons .56Obedience is a salient construct .53Discourages opposition .46

(5) Psychological controlIntrusive (7 items, a = .89)Item Item-total correlation

Intrusive .82Overcontrolling .75Manipulative .74Undermines child’s achievements .68Obtuse .66Abusive, hostile .65Overprotective .59

Encourages Independence and Individuation (8 items, a = .89; reverse scored for psychological control)Item Item-total correlation

Encourages self-directedness .80Encourages individuality in child .76Solicits child’s opinions .67Individualistic .65Shares decision-making power with child .65Encourages independent action .65Discourages conformity .62Defines child’s individuality accurately .60

Section II: Items obtained from the Parent Attitude Inquiry

(6) Promotes conformity and obedience (18 items, a = .87)Item Item-total correlation

A child should honor its mother and father and accept their authority. .69I expect my child be polite at school and not argue with a teacher. .61I do not want my child to be a nonconformist. .60Children should not talk back to adults. .59Children would get in less trouble if parents taught respect for authority. .58Children must learn to accommodate to group demands. .54Children today are rewarded too much for nonconformity. .52A child who defies authority is not very likeable. .50

Section III: Items obtained from the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale (abridged)

(7) Arbitrary discipline (12 items, a = .94)Item

Parent punishes impulsively with little forethought.Parent disciplines in a considerate, contingent, and moderate manner. (–)Prior to punishing, parent forewarns or ascertains child has intentionally

disobeyed. (–)Parent punishes to relieve own anger.Parent uses praise contingently to motivate good behaviors. (–)Parent’s disciplinary actions are predictable and internally consistent. (–)

(Continued)

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011

Page 46: Assertive Patterns

ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 201

APPENDIX B (Continued)

Parent contradicts and discredits spouse’s disciplinary efforts in front of the children.

Parent fits disciplinary action and reasons to child’s developmental level. (–)

(8) Verbal hostility (3 items, a = .76)Item

Parent yells or shouts.Parent belittles the child by use of sarcasm.Parent engages in nattering (pointless, disapproving chatter).

(9) Physical punishment (3 items, a = .88)Item

Parent regards spanking/striking child as an acceptable means for controlling child’s behavior.

Parent spanks child on extremities or buttocks.Parent frequently uses physical punishment (5-point scale):

1. Parent never strikes child.2. Parent has struck child 1–3 times.3. Parent has struck child 3–5 times.4. Parent makes frequent use of physical punishment (less than once

a week but as often as once a month).5. Parent makes very frequent use of physical punishment (as often as once

a week or more often).

Note. We used scores on this physical punishment scale (a) to isolate the seven families who used severephysical punishment and (b) to create the spanking (i.e., normative physical punishment) variable. Member-ship in the severe physical punishment group was determined by the physical punishment scale score and bya physical punishment intensity score created by averaging two Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale items: (a)parent uses paddle or other instrument to strike child, or strikes the child on the face or torso, and (b) parentlifts the child and throws or shakes the child. Severe physical punishment was coded as yes (n = 7) when thephysical punishment scale (number 9) and averaged intensity scores were both >1 SD above the samplemean. Analyses involving the physical punishment variable measured spanking (i.e., normative physicalpunishment) when these seven families were removed.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011