• While occasional arguments with siblings or peers are a normal part of childhood, more frequent conflicts may harm children’s behavioral and emotional development.
• Managing children’s conflict behavior can be challenging for caregivers, especially since few evidence-based interventions specifically target sibling or peer conflict.
• Our research explored an evidence-based parenting program designed for preschool and primary school aged children with disruptive behavior. The program aims to improve parent-child relationships. Our results suggest that this program may also reduce sibling conflict in families with high levels of sibling conflict. However, we did not find broader benefits for children’s relationships with peers.
• For families dealing with frequent sibling conflict, evidence-based parenting programs may be a promising resource for learning techniques to reduce conflict between siblings.
• We need to understand more about how to support families when children struggle with conflicts outside the home, such as with peers. This might involve collaborations between families and schools to promote children’s positive development.

Introduction

In this blog post, we briefly answer five main questions:

• What is children’s conflict behavior?
• How might conflict harm children’s development?
• How can communities support caregivers to reduce children’s conflict behavior?
• What is the Incredible Years parenting program?
• What do we know and what do we still need to understand about how to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

What is children’s conflict behavior?

Children’s conflict with their parents takes many forms. It might involve refusing to follow instructions and getting angry when things do not go their way. Conflict with other children might be more likely to involve physical or verbal arguments.

Photo by Monstera Production on Pexels

How might conflict harm children’s development?

Frequent conflict with siblings and peers can increase children’s risk of later mental health problems, such as higher levels of aggression. This might occur because conflict with siblings inadvertently teaches children to behave in increasingly aggressive ways. Additionally, children may be more likely to make friends with peers who show similarly disruptive behaviors, which can encourage further aggression.

How can communities support caregivers to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

Evidence-based interventions that specifically address children’s conflict with other children are limited, especially those that address sibling relationships. One promising approach may be group-based parenting programs that target children’s disruptive behavior more broadly. The effectiveness of such programs at reducing the broader range of disruptive behavior has been demonstrated in decades of research worldwide.

Group-based parenting programs aim to help caregivers interact more positively with their children, which in turn helps reduce children’s disruptive behavior. Goals often include replacing negative interaction patterns between parents and children, which might unintentionally reinforce challenging behavior in children, with more constructive techniques to help support children’s development.

Although the focus of such programs is improving parent-child relationships, improvements in the parent-child dynamic may spill over into children’s relationships with others, such as their siblings and peers.

Photo by Kampus Production on Pexels

Understanding whether parenting programs for children’s disruptive behavior can also reduce children’s conflicts with their siblings and peers is important. If these relationships do improve, it suggests that these programs might be even more effective than previously thought. In contrast, if the programs do not improve children’s conflict behavior, families may require additional support.

What is the Incredible Years parenting program?

To address this research gap, we analyzed data from more than 1,400 families. Each family participated in one of 12 published studies completed prior to 2016 in six European countries. In each study, researchers randomly assigned families of children ages 1-11 years to either the Incredible Years parenting program or an alternative experience, such as a normal care provision, or a waiting list to receive Incredible Years. Our goal was to assess the Incredible Years program’s effects on children’s conflict with parents, siblings, and peers.

About the program

Incredible Years is one of the most extensively researched group-based parenting programs for managing young children’s disruptive behavior. The program developers drew from scientific findings about children’s behavior, family relationships, and effective intervention strategies. More than 50 studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing children’s disruptive behavior. Given its strong evidence base, influential organizations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom, the Youth Institute in the Netherlands, and Blueprints in the United States have recommended the program.

In the program, caregivers meet in small groups led by trained facilitators for 12 to 18 weekly sessions. Caregivers are taught techniques for building warm relationships with their children (e.g., using responsive play) and encouraging positive child behavior (e.g., using praise and rewards). Facilitators also introduce methods to discourage children’s negative behavior through setting limits and constructive discipline techniques (e.g., time-outs, the removal of privileges).

Although the focus of such programs is improving parent-child relationships, improvements in the parent-child dynamic may spill over into children’s relationships with others, such as their siblings and peers.

An important part of the program is its collaborative approach. Caregivers work with group facilitators to set and pursue their own parenting goals. For example, some caregivers might choose to focus on strategies to reduce fighting between siblings. Since caregivers decide their own parenting goals, some families might focus on addressing disruptive behaviour in multiple children, while others might concentrate on the behaviour of one child.

Our research

We combined the data from the 12 studies. In all studies, caregivers were randomly assigned to either take part in the Incredible Years program or to a control condition in which they did not participate in the program.

Each study measured caregivers’ perceptions of the frequency of their child’s conflict with parents, siblings, and peers. When families had more than one child, we used data from the child with the highest level of disruptive behaviour at the beginning of the study.

Photo by SHVETS production on Pexels

The 12 studies took place in six European countries: England, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Wales. The children in the studies ranged from 1 – 11 years old, with most children aged between 4 and 7 years. Of the children, 61% were male.

The participating caregivers were primarily mothers (97%), with an average age of 34 years. Families had diverse socioeconomic backgrounds: 60% had low incomes, 36% were from families in which no one was employed, and 30% were from an ethnic minority.

Our findings

Participating in the Incredible Years program reduced the frequency of children’s conflict with their parents. Parents who took part in the Incredible Years program reported greater decreases in conflicts with their child (for example, fewer instances of their child refusing to follow their instructions) compared to parents who did not take part in the program. This was what we expected, because the program is designed to improve parent-child relationships.

The unexpected finding was that for the 22% of families with high levels of sibling conflict at the start of the program (where parents, on average, rated their child as ‘often’ or ‘always’ having conflict with their sibling), Incredible Years also reduced children’s sibling conflicts.

This might have happened because new techniques like limit-setting helped caregivers address sibling arguments more effectively. Also, if caregivers interacted more positively with the child with the most severe disruptive behavior in the family, that child may have modelled this behavior with their siblings.

Finally, applying the new parenting techniques to all children in the family (e.g., praising children’s positive behavior and selectively ignoring children’s minor negative behavior) might have led to overall improvements in behavior, reducing sibling arguments.

Stronger collaboration between families and schools may help ensure that positive changes in children’s behavior at home are supported and sustained.

However, taking part in the Incredible Years program did not reduce children’s conflict with peers. This might be because it is hard for children to change their behavior outside the home in a setting where others (e.g., teachers, peers) have not changed how they interact with them.

What do we know and what do we still need to understand about how to reduce children’s conflict behavior?

Group-based parenting programs targeting children’s disruptive behavior are well-known for strengthening parent-child relationships and promoting positive child development. Our study shows that one such program, the Incredible Years program, not only enhances parent-child relationships, but may also help reduce sibling conflicts, particularly for families experiencing high levels of sibling conflict.

Taking part in the Incredible Years program did not have an effect on children’s conflict with peers. This does not necessarily mean these programs cannot reduce peer conflict, but that communities need to understand more about how to support families when children’s conflict with peers is a concern.

Stronger collaboration between families and schools may help ensure that positive changes in children’s behavior at home are supported and sustained in school environments.

The post Can parenting programs improve young children’s sibling and peer relationships? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

1. Parental self-efficacy (i.e., a parent’s confidence in their own ability to care for their infant and respond to the infant’s needs) is the first step to a good parent-child relationship.
2. Research has explored the development of maternal self-efficacy beginning during pregnancy and continuing after childbirth.
3. Mothers who have previous childbirth and parenting experience or who live in a supportive environment have higher levels of self-efficacy in parenting after childbirth than do mothers without experience or support. A supportive environment might include access to professionals for relevant advice or family and friends for emotional support.
4. Attending classes on preparing for birth or childrearing can support the development of parental self-efficacy during pregnancy.

This article will explore the four following topics in becoming a confident parent:

1. Finding self-efficacy in the transition to (re)parenthood
2. What is self-efficacy and why is it important?
3. Social support and sociodemographic factors relate to parental self-efficacy
4. Mothers’ reports of their social support and maternal self-efficacy

1) Finding self-efficacy in the transition to (re)parenthood

In a study we conducted of new mothers, one mother described her early experiences with her baby in these words: “… somehow, he was only crying, and that’s normal, but he was really extreme; well he’s not a baby for beginners, that’s what my midwife said, and uhm, yeah, I don’t know, he was actually only crying and we were really at our limits…”

The challenges of becoming a parent can often be unique to the individual. Photo by Ron Lach on Pexels.

Becoming a parent is often a joyful process, but it also comes with challenges. Apart from the physical changes of childbirth and recovery, the transition to parenthood is characterized by behavioral and psychological challenges, such as acquiring new caretaking skills and adapting to a new role.

Once the infant is born, parents typically experience a lack of sleep and an increased workload; they need to change their daily routines or even their overall lifestyle.

Describing this stage, another mother said, “… the beginning, the first four weeks, they were really hard, because he always woke up at night, cried, didn’t want to sleep for two hours, made me totally exhausted, and I’m such a person, I absolutely need sleep and food, … then one just can’t go anymore, … talk anymore…”

Not all parents experience the transition to parenthood in the same way

But not all parents experience the transition to parenthood in this way. Among the factors that influence a mother’s adaptation to parenthood are prenatal expectations, social support, the quality of her partnership with the baby’s father, previous parenting experiences, characteristics of the infant, mental health, and stress.

During this process, parental role and parental self-efficacy are shaped, and both play a key role in later parenting behaviors and the parent-infant-relationship. In this article, we focus on parental self-efficacy in mothers.

… the beginning, the first four weeks, they were really hard, because he always woke up at night, cried, didn’t want to sleep for two hours, made me totally exhausted, and I’m such a person, I absolutely need sleep and food, … then one just can’t go anymore, … talk anymore…

2) What is parental self-efficacy and why is it important?

Parental self-efficacy refers to a parent’s confidence in their ability to care for their child and meet the child’s needs. Worldwide, higher levels of parental self-efficacy are associated with better home learning environments, stronger parent-child relationships, and healthier child development (e.g., better social skills, fewer internalizing and externalizing behaviors).

Even though the role of fathers in this context is beginning to be recognized in many Anglo-American and European countries, mothers remain the primary focus when considering the months before and after childbirth because they are the primary caregivers most of the time.

Supporting women early in this stage to increase their beliefs of maternal self-efficacy may have long-term positive effects for both mothers and children. Such support appears to be particularly important for children from disadvantaged populations (e.g., children of parents with low levels of education, low incomes, or migrant backgrounds) who may lack the resources and knowledge to create enriching environments.

3) Social support and sociodemographic factors relate to parental self-efficacy

Multiple studies show that a lack of social support during the prenatal period increases the risk of not adapting well to parenthood. However, several sociodemographic factors make pregnant women less likely to receive such support, and therefore also make those women more likely to struggle with low levels of parental self-efficacy.

For example, pregnant mothers who do not live in their country of origin often have smaller social networks and are more likely than native residents to experience social isolation during pregnancy. That social isolation, in turn, can contribute to mothers’ lack of confidence in their new role.

For first-time mothers, especially, this new role is a substantial change. Many feel less competent as parents than do mothers who have children and therefore have had experience with childbirth and parenting. As a result, many first-time mothers find it more difficult to adapt to the maternal role, according to a study in Portugal. 

Finding confidence as a mother can be as challenging as it can be rewarding. Photo by William Fortunato on Pexels.

4) Mothers’ reports of their social support and maternal self-efficacy

Together with our collaborators, we conducted a study to explore sociodemographic factors and relations between mothers’ social support and maternal self-efficacy during the transition from pregnancy to (re-)motherhood.

Even though parental efficacy/confidence develops during pregnancy through the child-related preparations, expectations, and experiences, most studies focus on the postnatal period, neglecting the period when self-efficacy in parenting develops. In addition, studies have tended to be conducted with participants of high socioeconomic backgrounds in Western societies.

In this study, we interviewed 292 mothers (between 18 and 47 years old) living in disadvantaged neighborhoods in a medium-sized city in Germany.

The status of “disadvantaged” was based on at least one parent meeting one or more of these requirements: low levels of education (no formal schooling beyond secondary school or no vocational school), low family income (unemployed or low-wage earner), or being an immigrant or child of an immigrant.

We spoke to them both before and after delivery, asking about their demographic information (e.g., education level, migration background, previous childbirth experience), how well they felt supported by their social environment, and whether they participated in professional social support programs (e.g., birth preparation or parenting classes).

We measured their sense of parental self-efficacy using an established questionnaire, with questions targeting mothers’ beliefs about their own parenting knowledge and associated feelings.

Our findings

Although the regions where the mothers in our study lived offered free support programs for all pregnant women and women with young children, only about half took advantage of these services.

These were mostly first-time mothers and mothers without a migration background. Not only were these mothers more likely to seek formal support, but they also benefited the most from participating in such programs, showing the greatest increases in maternal self-efficacy/confidence between pregnancy and the early months after childbirth.

Our suggestions

Based on our findings, communities should make sure that expectant mothers are informed about the social support programs and classes that are available and we should encourage them to participate.

For instance, in Germany, many municipalities offer prenatal and postnatal support programs for mothers free of charge. In these programs, mothers can get to know each other, share experiences and engage in peer mentoring, and receive information from a professional (e.g., midwife).

These types of programs are promising ways to increase maternal self-efficacy, which can then have long-term positive effects on both parenting practices and children’s behavior.

Support programs that demonstrate success in improving parenting confidence are becoming increasingly popular. Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.

Municipalities should increase efforts to ensure that all mothers can access these kinds of services. Making the programs free is one step; however, communicating about the programs and making them accessible to a diverse network of women and families involves further steps.

For example, some foreign-born mothers, especially those who have recently immigrated, do not know about these services, and many are hesitant to participate because of language barriers. However, although the first step may be difficult, many mothers who participate report that these programs can be both enjoyable and helpful in terms of gaining parenting knowledge and confidence.

By connecting women to accessible support programs, communities can pave the way for a healthy parent-child relationship and help give each child the best possible start in life.

The post Becoming Confident in Parenting Abilities appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Although most parents strive to provide a loving, gentle and supportive environment for their children, they sometimes rely on harsh parenting practices to instill discipline and rules.
• Our research shows that harsh parenting, such as hitting or shouting, may have a damaging effect on children’s behavior and emotional development. Not to mention their educational attainment.
• This is a two-way relationship: Children struggling with big emotions or having trouble behaving appropriately (as any child will during their development) may also increase the strain on their caregivers’ parenting behaviors.
• This can lead to a self-perpetuating loop in which harsh parenting practices increase children’s mental health problems, which leads to further increases in harsh parenting practices, thus further exacerbating children’s mental health difficulties.
• Policies and services for parents should emphasize the benefits of positive parenting practices over harsh parenting practices.

Harsh parenting negatively affects children’s mental health

In many parts of the world, including the United States, England, and Northern Ireland, physically punishing children is still officially permitted. This is problematic considering that several studies suggest that harsh parenting practices, such as hitting or shouting, negatively affect children’s behavioral and emotional development.

Such practices have been linked to an increased risk of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and aggression. They have also been associated with poorer academic performance, lower self-esteem, and impaired social skills.

Using harsh parenting practices such as hitting or shouting is not only ineffective as a disciplinary tool but may harm children’s mental health.

How does children’s mental health affect parenting behavior?

While research has primarily considered the effect of parenting behavior on children’s development, effects may also occur in the opposite direction. Children who act out frequently or struggle with controlling their emotions may also place unique strains on parenting behavior. As a result, children’s mental health may negatively affect parenting.

For example, a child who has trouble controlling their emotions may throw frequent temper tantrums, which can lead to parental frustration and negative reactions, such as yelling or physical punishment. This, in turn, may lead the child to struggle with controlling their emotions even more.

Such two-way relationships have received limited attention in research. By recognizing the influence that a child’s behavior can have on parenting, interventions can be designed to target both the child’s emotional and behavioral difficulties and the parent’s reactions and coping mechanisms. Supporting parents in managing their child’s difficulties in a positive and effective way can ultimately lead to better outcomes for both the child and the family.

Photo: Monstera. Pexels.

Exploring two-way relations between parenting and children’s mental health

My colleagues and I conducted a study to explore the two-way relations between parenting behaviors and children’s mental health. We investigated whether harsh parenting tactics such as hitting and shouting show two-way relations with children’s behaviors across early to middle childhood (when children are three, five, and seven years old).

The behavioral effects we studied included two externalizing behaviors – conduct problems (e.g., throwing temper tantrums) and hyperactive/inattentive behaviors (e.g., being easily distracted). We also looked at emotional problems (e.g., symptoms of depression and anxiety).

Our study included 14,037 children (49% female, 84% White) and one of their parents (primarily mothers) who were part of the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Participants came from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, ensuring that the study was representative of the UK population.

Evidence for two-way relations between harsh parenting and children’s mental health

Using harsh parenting techniques, such as shouting at or hitting three- to five-year-olds, led to children showing more symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention, and more emotional problems when they were five and seven. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that harsh parenting practices have a negative effect on children’s mental health.

Harsh parenting practices can increase children’s mental health problems which, in turn, lead to further increases in harsh parenting practices.

This is not a one-way relation. Parents of children who showed more conduct problems and hyperactive/inattentive behaviors and parents of children with higher levels of emotional problems were more likely to increase their harsh parenting in the subsequent year. Thus, harsh parenting may have negative effects for children through a negative self-perpetuating loop: In this way, harsh parenting practices can increase children’s mental health problems which, in turn, lead to further increases in harsh parenting practices.

Photo: Luke Pennystand. Unsplash

How can parents support children with behavioral or emotional issues?

1. Support children’s ability to meet expectations

First, our findings suggest that using harsh parenting practices such as hitting or shouting is not only ineffective as a disciplinary tool but may harm children’s mental health. Other parenting techniques should be used to support children’s healthy development, such as ignoring unwanted behaviors, setting clear expectations, and explaining why certain behaviors are unwanted. (For additional examples, see the evidence-based Incredible Years Parent Programs.)

These approaches help children understand and learn from their mistakes without damaging their self-esteem or sense of security. Using such methods can lead to a more positive and supportive relationship between parent and child.

2. Consider socioemotional difficulties

Second, our findings underline the importance of addressing parenting difficulties in families with socioemotional difficulties to help prevent the accumulation of additional issues. Children experiencing big emotions or having trouble behaving appropriately can increase the stress and challenges of parenting. Thus, we encourage parents to reflect on their parenting strategies and seek the assistance of mental health professionals to develop ways to support their children in overcoming challenging behaviors without resorting to harsh parenting tactics.

Photo: Ahmed akacha. Pexels.

What does this mean for child development policy?

Our research supports recent policy changes in Scotland and Wales, which explicitly ban the use of physical punishment as a parenting tool. We encourage policymakers in other parts of the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere to implement similar policies.

Policymakers should also prioritize providing interventions and services for at-risk children and families. This could include evidence-based parenting programs, mental health support for parents and children, and other forms of family support to help promote positive child development and prevent the escalation of behavioral and emotional difficulties and negative effects.

The post The Effects of Harsh Parenting: A negative self-perpetuating loop appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Effective parenting involves being responsive to the child as well as exerting appropriate guidance.
• Achieving a balance between these two behavioral dimensions can be challenging and changes with the child’s development.

Introduction to Authoritative Parenting

One of the most important and enduring concepts in research on raising children is authoritative parenting. Coined in the late 1960s by the psychologist Diana Baumrind, this concept refers to a general style of or behavioral approach toward childrearing. The style is characterized by two fundamental features: exhibiting responsiveness and exerting control.

Although being responsive to children and providing discipline have long been recognized as key ingredients of effective parenting, prior to Baumrind’s work, the two dimensions were largely considered – and studied – separately. By combining the two areas into a single construct, she recognized that these characteristics need to occur together in parenting.

In her landmark monograph, Current Patterns of Parental Authority (1971), Baumrind provided evidence that children of authoritative parents tended to be more socially competent and have fewer behavioral problems than children of parents who used other childrearing styles.

Her conceptualization of what made mothers and fathers effective became highly influential and continues to be widely accepted worldwide as the ideal childrearing style. But as important and longstanding as the concept is, unanswered questions remain.

Photo: Kampus Production. Pexels.

What is authoritative parenting?

By definition, an authoritative parent has two behavioral dimensions. First, the adult is very responsive to their child (sometimes referred to as warmth, supportiveness, or nurturance). This responsiveness is oriented around nurturance with the goal of promoting self-regulation and encouraging self-assertion in children, and recognizing and accepting children’s individuality (Baumrind, 1991).

The second behavioral dimension is commonly labeled guidance (sometimes also called demandingness, control, or discipline) and refers to firmly enforcing rules of socialization and behavioral standards. The parent provides structure, predictability, limits, and accountability, usually through rules. The rules are appropriate to a child’s age and reflect high behavioral expectations, such as not allowing any forms of aggression.

The rules or guidelines for behavior are not arbitrary and may be informed by the child’s input: Authoritative parents engage in open, two-way communication with their children. They explain to their children, with clear reasons, why they have established the rules and expectations and consider their children’s input in the decision-making process. A hallmark of this parenting style is respecting the child as an individual.

Authoritative parents engage in open, two-way communication with their children.

However, ultimately, the parent makes the final decisions. Although not necessarily democratic, because parents maintain ultimate authority, in authoritative parenting, parents treat their children in a benevolent way by balancing these two behavioral dimensions.

From the child’s perspective, the parent is viewed as loving, open to discussion, and respectful. But the child also recognizes that their parent follows clear and firm behavioral guidelines, maintains high expectations, and sets definitions and boundaries regarding unacceptable behavior. The child also knows there will be consequences for transgressions, whether a verbal reprimand or punishment, such as taking away a favorite toy or a privilege.

Contrasting parenting styles

Perhaps the easiest way to recognize authoritative parents is to compare them with parents who use the three contrasting childrearing styles (although Baumrind identified only two of the three): authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved parenting.

An authoritarian (or autocratic) parent is just that – very controlling and demanding, and not very responsive. This type of parent expects immediate obedience and compliance, and does not provide explanations or take the child’s perspective into account.

Think of a Hollywood movie stereotype of a military drill sergeant who barks orders at his enlisted men and demands immediate, unquestioning compliance. In authoritarian parenting, reasons are not used to justify commands. This style is centered on the parent because the parent’s focus is on themselves and getting the child to obey, comply, and fit in.

In stark contrast to the authoritarian style is the permissive style (also called indulgent or non-directive), where the parent has few if any expectations of or limits on their child and in fact, allows the child free reign. Permissive parents do not expect mature behavior. They are very responsive and lenient, and they avoid conflict. The permissive style reflects an approach to childrearing that is centered on the child; the child is the boss and makes his or her own decisions. Dessert for dinner is okay with an extremely permissive parent.

In an influential chapter published in 1983, two psychologists, Eleanor Maccoby and John Martin, labeled Baumrind’s two central parenting dimensions as warmth and control to characterize different parenting styles. And they identified a fourth type of parenting: uninvolved.

The uninvolved parent (also called neglectful or detached) is not involved in parenting their child and consequently is neither warm nor controlling. Parents who are uninvolved may have a mental or physical health problem, be separated or divorced, lack interest in their child, be a workaholic, or live apart from their child.

Photo: Anastasia Shuraeva. Pexels.

Evidence for the beneficial effects of authoritative parenting

In 1966, Baumrind first described the three models of parental control. She followed that with research on preschool-aged children and their parents. Her most carefully documented study, of 146 White, middle-class preschool children and their parents in the United States (Baumrind, 1971), yielded somewhat mixed results. A close read of her research reveals that her findings are not as dramatic or clearcut as is portrayed in most textbooks.

Based on interviews with parents, questionnaires filled out by parents, and behavioral ratings of their children, she discovered that the daughters of authoritative parents (and a subsample of the boys) were more socially competent and independent, and achieved at higher levels in school, than were the children of authoritarian or permissive parents. Boys of authoritative parents were more socially responsible than sons of parents with other styles. The subtleties of Baumrind’s findings were often forgotten and the beneficial associations of authoritative parenting are overstated in most textbooks.

Prompted by these initial studies, many researchers began investigating the relation between parenting styles and children’s behavior. In virtually all cases, the studies relied on short self-report questionnaires to classify parents into a particular parenting style.

Despite taking less rigorous methodological approaches than Baumrind did in her work, the studies consistently found that authoritative parenting related positively to a variety of variables in children and adolescents. Among these variables are greater social competence, high academic performance and cognitive competence, and lower rates of emotional and behavioral problems (e.g., depression, low self-esteem, aggression) than found in children of either authoritarian or permissive parents.

Variables commonly studied in adolescents include academic performance, social psychosocial functioning, aggression, juvenile delinquency, and drug or alcohol problems. As in research with younger children, studies of puberty and adolescents have consistently found that authoritative parenting is related to better youth functioning (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992).

Studies consistently found that authoritative parenting related positively to a variety of variables in children and adolescents.

More than 50 years after the concept of authoritative parenting first appeared, research on this style of childrearing continues. Since 2020, many studies have been published that link the style to a variety of positive characteristics. Among the findings: that authoritative parenting is related to prosocial behavior and more communication about sex-related topics; is associated with healthier diets in children; and protects against obesity, smoking and drinking, and mood disorders (e.g., depression) in children and youth.

This evidence is largely consistent both within and across cultures. For example, in the United States, authoritative parenting and academic achievement commonly co-occur, although there is some cultural variation. Similarly, despite minor regional variations, evidence from China, Russia, Pakistan, Spain, and many other countries is consistent: Authoritative parenting is associated with positive outcomes (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).

The child’s role

One cautionary note concerns the role of the child. Researcher Catherine Lewis (1983) pointed out that Baumrind failed to account for the child’s role in eliciting parents’ behavior. She argued that competent children are more likely to bring about authoritative-type responses from their parents than are other children.

Picture a fatigued mother of a challenging child. She may need to be more controlling because her child is non-compliant. Or consider a father, tired of attempting to manage his son who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although he might be viewed as a permissive parent, his prior childrearing practices likely made no substantive contribution to his son’s behavior.

In cross-sectional data about parenting styles, evidence about the child’s role suggests that parenting styles change with the age of the child. When children are younger, parents tend to be more controlling, but they become more permissive as their children grow older (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1987).

Photo: Barbara Olsen. Pexels.

Some limitations of authoritative parenting

As important and influential as the idea of an authoritative parenting style is, it can be faulted as being too simplistic. It reflects a broad brushstroke that attempts to capture the complex landscape of a parenting style.

The reality is that childrearing changes as the situation or behavioral domain (e.g., pertaining to morality, social convention, safety) merits. And the question initially raised by Lewis (1981) – whether childrearing is affected primarily by the parenting style or the child’s effect on the adult’s behavior – has not been adequately investigated.

The nature of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the authoritative approach is also limited. For ethical and practical reasons, we lack true experimental evidence to definitively determine the effects of parenting styles. Instead, researchers rely on correlational evidence and, all too often, on short self-report questionnaires to classify parents.

We also know little about the psychological mechanisms involved. Why does authoritative parenting promote optimal development (see Larzelere, Morris, & Harrist, 2013)?

A second neglected topic relates to examining the challenging social cognition processes required to balance socialization expectations with a child’s needs for nurturance. For example, authoritative parents must decide when and where to set limits, in contrast to making allowances for special circumstances (e.g., a sick child, a child acting out because of attention given to a younger sibling).

Conclusion

Developmental psychologists and parenting experts now agree that effective parents should engage in a style known as authoritative childrearing, which involves being responsive to the child but also having high socialization behavioral expectations and exerting appropriate guidance.

This consensus is based on largely consistent though correlational findings, from over half a century of studies from many countries, that these parenting qualities result in competent and well-adjusted children and youth. Although the concept has some limitations and questions remain, the basic premise is widely accepted that authoritative childrearing contains two of the key ingredients of effective parenting: responsivity and guidance.

The post Authoritative parenting: Balancing discipline with warmth and support appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

“That is not fair!” Any parent or teacher knows how early in children’s lives this notion drives human behavior, motivation, and belonging. When children feel they are treated fairly, they develop a sense of safety and predictability, and find reason to comply with rules and legitimize authorities. Parents and teachers are justice gatekeepers in children’s lives. How they handle conflict and discipline shapes children’s expectations of justice in other settings.

Most children and adolescents do not have direct contact with legal authorities, such as police or judges. However, one of the ways they build their perspectives is based on the justice they have grown to expect from closer authorities. Data from a diverse group of 680 Brazilian adolescents revealed that parents’ justice at home and their evaluations of school fairness predicted how adolescents perceived their personal access to justice and the justice of the world at large. Furthermore, adolescents’ world views of justice predicted how much they legitimized the law and avoided delinquent behaviors the following year.

It is easy to think about justice as simply getting what you deserve, but that bypasses one of the more powerful cognitions of justice – the process of justice. Procedural justice considers the respect, neutrality, voice, and fairness of the authority’s actions. A child may not agree that she should be disciplined for her dishonesty, but if the parent is respectful, explains the rules, and listens to the child, she is more likely to continue respecting her parents’ authority, despite her frustration. The point is not to be lenient, but to emerge on the other side with your child’s respect so that, even when consequences are firm, the child experiences the safety and predictability of justice.

“How parents and teachers handle conflict and discipline shapes children’s expectations of justice in other settings.”

It is vital that children experience justice and come to expect it. Harsh punishments or rules without explanation do not feel fair, and chip away at the legitimacy youth attribute to authorities at large – and that illegitimacy makes them vulnerable to future delinquency.

When you find out your child has done something wrong, do you:

• Listen to their side of the story?
• Talk to them politely?
• Explain why you are disciplining them?

Youth should be given the chance to articulate their perspective and practice civil dialogue in common daily scenarios. When children are consistently given a chance to explain their perspective and be respected by the authorities they know, they will anticipate and even demand to be given the same rights in society.

The world is not a fair place, and failing to expose injustice underprepares children at best, and leads them to blame the victims or be the victims at worst. The goal is not to have children believe the world is fair, but is to make their lives fair so they can be equipped with the courage to engage in positive civic behaviors and avoid fatalistic mindsets.

“We want to raise children to speak up and expect to be heard and understood.”

We want to raise children who are equipped for the challenges of the world. Doing so begins by providing a safe haven at home and at school, where they can learn to connect their actions to outcomes and to be outraged by, not cynical of, injustice. We want them to have good reasons to legitimize their authorities. We want to raise children to speak up and expect to be heard and understood. We must model for them the kind of justice we want them to demand from society.

The post The Justice Gatekeepers for our Children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research shows that parents’ legitimacy increases when they set rules based on morality and safety. Constructive practices are more effective than harsh ones.

As children move into their preteen years, they increasingly differentiate between rules and obey the ones they think are legitimate. One of the most promising ways to bolster parents’ legitimacy is to treat children fairly.

Negative Impacts of Punishment

Parents often try to make their children comply with rules through punishments, but in our study, parental practices of procedural justice predicted obedience more strongly than did punishments. Procedural justice practices include allowing children to give their side of the story, explaining to them why they are being reprimanded, and talking politely.

“Research shows that parents’ legitimacy increases when they are fair judges.”

The study assessed a diverse group of 697 Brazilian 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds once a year for three years. Disciplinary practices were classified into constructive practices (e.g., removing privileges, reprimanding verbally, grounding) and harsh practices (e.g., threatening, physically punishing , yelling). Harsh practices actually increased disobedience, possibly because they diminished perceived parental legitimacy. In other words, when parents punished their children harshly, instead of promoting obedience, it made the parents look less credible.

Parents often try to make their children comply with rules through punishments

This study also allowed children to differentiate between issues. It is well established that, as children develop, they discriminate between domains over which parents have authority and grant more legitimacy to issues of safety and morality than to issues of convention or personal preference. In the study, the children were presented with 10 common household rules and asked if it was legitimate for their parents to have that rule. The issues with the highest legitimacy across all three years were substance use and truth telling. The issues that declined the most in legitimacy were media use, curfews, homework, and dating. And the strongest predictor of individual obedience was issue-specific legitimacy. Thus, children obeyed the rules over which they thought their parents had legitimate authority.

The study also asked about parents’ global legitimacy, in other words, whether youth thought their parents had the right to make the rules and whether they trusted their parents to make the right decisions. Youth’s evaluations of global legitimacy also strongly predicted their obedience.

“One of the most promising ways to bolster parents’ legitimacy is to treat children fairly.”

Prior research has established that authorities with high levels of procedural justice are typically legitimized. In other words, if your child thinks you are a fair judge, he or she may obey you because he or she sees you as a legitimate authority figure. However, harsh disciplinary strategies may backfire for the same reasons. Instead of eliciting a healthy fear, they may unintentionally undermine parental legitimacy.

So, for your children to obey you, based on this study, you should:

• Avoid harsh discipline because it tends to backfire in the long term.
• Emphasize procedural justice (hear youth’s perspective, be polite, provide explanation).
• Stick to issues of morality and safety – it may be a losing battle to enforce other rules.

Published on 31/01/2021

Updated on 05/02/2024

The post How to make your child to obey you appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Many parents say they plan to stop corporal punishment of their children after a parenting skills program.

Given the known benefits of developing healthy parenting skills, a big challenge is to help moms and dads improve their approaches, particularly shifting away from corporal punishment of children.

That’s where our breakthrough comes in. We’ve designed a free, low cost parenting skills program — taking just a few minutes – that’s proven to shift parents’ attitudes away from corporal punishment.

This program, designed for parenting of children aged between six months and seven years, not only changes views on corporal punishment. It’s also a gateway to learn more generally about healthy parenting skills.

A cost-effective way to reduce corporal punishment of children

Such a parenting skills program, successfully applied across large numbers of parents, could be a major contribution to public health and to children’s long-term well-being at a manageable cost across large populations. This could be an important advance since other programs that aim to reduce corporal punishment of children have involved many sessions, which can make the cost prohibitive for mass programming.

“This parenting skills program not only changes views on corporal punishment. It’s also a gateway to learning more generally about healthy parenting.”

There is clearly a big opportunity if a good – ‘low dose’, highly effective – intervention can be perfected. Our intervention is an initial step, demonstrating that it’s possible to change parents’ attitudes around discipline with a brief, low-cost, ‘small dose’ parenting skills intervention.  That’s encouraging because other research shows that when parents alter their attitudes to corporal punishment of children, parental behavior also changes.

Tackling corporal punishment of children without stigmatising parents

Our intervention, developed and tested at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, is rooted in a multimedia programme on the website Playnicely.org. It avoids labelling parents as bad moms or dads or as abusive to their children. That approach could alienate — and create a conflict with — the parents we most need to influence.

Instead, the multimedia parenting skills program adopts a strengths-based approach, offering parents lots of options for disciplining their children in ways that avoid corporal punishment. A key question the program asks is: ‘What do you do if your child hits another?’ I love this question because early childhood aggression is a strong predictor of later violence, so we’re getting to the heart of a huge public health problem.

Offering options that are better than corporal punishment of children

We know that parents are less likely to hit their children if they’re given better options. In the parenting skills program, we run with this idea by giving parents 20 disciplinary options. Some are great, others are not. Clicking on an option is followed with a notice about whether the option is or isn’t recommended and approximately one minute of educational content. One option, for example, involves corporal punishment: it’s not recommended, as you might have guessed.

This parenting skills program not only changes views on corporal punishment. It’s also a gateway to learning more generally about healthy parenting. The options can be tweaked to respond to other challenging behaviors such as oppositional defiant disorder, where children don’t listen well to parents or constantly defy what their parents say.

We’ve found that among parents who clicked at least four of the 20 options, 83 percent said they planned to alter their disciplinary approaches. In comparison, just 7 per cent of who didn’t receive the intervention planned to change their disciplining in any way. In the intervention group, 9 percent spontaneously said they would decrease corporal punishment, compared with none in the control group.

“An important next step for this parenting skills program will be establishing how large a ‘dose’ is needed to prompt not only a desire to alter behavior, but actual changes in behavior.”

A feature of the parenting skills program is that paediatricians and other healthcare providers can introduce all parents to it as a quick way to learn a few things about discipline in ways that avoids corporal punishment. Using this approach, parents are not screened or stigmatised.  They can also try the program at home, scrolling through the options. Alternatively, they can review a printed handbook in the clinic or check out a copy from our family resource centre. We’re currently testing whether the printed or online versions are more effective and whether viewing the content at home works as well as research has found it to work in our clinical setting. So far, we seem to get the best results with clinic viewing.

Need to ensure that parents act on intention to stop corporal punishment of their children

Considerable hurdles remain to perfecting interventions that tackle corporal punishment. An important next step for this parenting skills program will be establishing how large a ‘dose’ is needed to prompt not only a desire to alter behavior, but actual changes in behavior over time.

There is also the question of how to make such information widely available to parents. In the US, paediatricians are trained to address child behavior issues and educate parents about topics such as discipline and punishment. So their clinics are, in principle, suitable locations for such interventions. However, appointments typically last only 15-20 minutes, and that time is normally taken up by clinical issues.

Parents might be concerned about their child’s cough, abdominal pain or a sore throat. There’s screening for conditions such as tuberculosis, vision or hearing problems, autism and developmental concerns. We must ensure that immunisations are up to date. So it can be an extraordinary challenge to fit in another service around healthy parenting, available to everyone, that insurers may be reluctant to fund.

Screening parents could reduce costs

A solution to addressing cost and time might involve some initial screening for parents to identify those most in need of help. Lots of parents are currently using healthy disciplining and don’t need input. Screening would reduce the number of parents to be reached. We’ve tested 1,500 parents using a screener and this approach shows promise. However, great care would have to be taken not to stigmatise those who were identified as being in need of help. It would be far better if we could work out a sustainable way to reach all parents with influential messages about healthy parenting, so that corporal punishment is challenged and reduced.

The post Short, low-cost online parenting skills program may cut corporal punishment of children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The demise of corporal punishment is slow because of lack of clarity about effectiveness of different forms of child discipline.

The evidence that corporal punishment (such as spanking, smacking, or slapping) can impair child development is compelling. The accumulated research shows convincingly that parents should adopt “positive child discipline”—childrearing without corporal punishment. But research has yet to establish the best alternative form of child discipline. This uncertainty may be slowing the demise of corporal punishment.

Findings from over 1,200 studies consistently link corporal punishment to problems including aggression, antisocial behaviour, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and even diminished cognitive capacities. Children who have been subjected to corporal punishment are also at greater risk of problems in adulthood, such as substance and alcohol abuse.

Corporal punishment is not even an effective means of child discipline. Although the punishment “works” by immediately stopping a misbehavior or evoking a strong emotional response from a child (i.e., crying), it doesn’t promote good behavior. In a study that my graduate students and I conducted, based on audio recordings of home interactions, we found that most children who were slapped or spanked were misbehaving again within minutes.

The evidence is clear: corporal punishment is ineffective, outdated, and sometimes counterproductive for child development. Yet removing it from parents’ repertoire of child discipline will not be easy. Its entrenched nature is particularly apparent in the United States, where some 65% of adult Americans still approve of using corporal punishment to discipline children—a number that has fallen only modestly over time. And approval of corporal punishment is the most reliable predictor of whether parents actually hit their children.

Many parents don’t know corporal punishment disadvantages child development

Several impediments to change help explain why parents continue to practice corporal punishment. First, many remain unaware of the sizable body of evidence showing the damage it can cause for child development. Second, although corporal punishment is clearly not a good way to discipline children, we need evidence for effective alternatives. We also need to communicate better with parents about how they can discipline children without resorting to physical punishment.

“We need to have better evidence about effective child discipline alternatives. We also need to communicate better with parents about how to discipline children without using corporal punishment.”

The first impediment – people are unaware of the evidence – should not be difficult to tackle. Parents often discipline children physically because they mistakenly believe that it will improve their behavior and that it does no long-term harm. My research and others’ shows that providing information about the negative effects of corporal punishment can quickly change at least some minds.

What is the best alternative to corporal punishment?

The second impediment to change — parents not knowing how to discipline without corporal punishment — is harder to overcome. But a relatively new concept called positive child discipline can help. A minimal definition of positive discipline is simply parenting without hitting. I refer to this as the “lite” form of positive discipline.

However, the “strong” form of positive child discipline requires parents to adopt a different orientation to childrearing. Traditionally, parents have taken a “power and control” approach. Children should comply and obey; if they do not, punishment, including corporal punishment, is considered necessary. The newer orientation involves relinquishing immediate child compliance and unquestioning obedience as key goals of childrearing.

Photo: James Russo. Creative Commons.

‘Strong’ form of positive child discipline changes child-rearing

 “Strong” positive discipline, first proposed by the Austrian physician Alfred Adler in the 1930s, argues for a radical philosophical departure from traditional parenting practices. Parents’ primary goal, he believed, should be a loving and cooperative relationship with their children. If they achieve such a relationship, compliance and good behavior will follow, without any need for corporal punishment, along with open communication, trust, and continuing positive relationships.

Adler also believed parents need to respect their children as unique individuals with separate needs and desires. Punishments and rewards should be avoided. When possible, parents should engage in “child-centered” behavior and do what their children wish, because cooperation requires give and take from both sides. In this way, children will learn to cooperate happily without the fear of punishment or the motivation of a reward.

This approach to child discipline does not advocate wishy-washy or permissive parenting. Instead, it proposes that parents should maintain age-appropriate expectations for children, recognising that it takes years for children to learn to self-regulate. That view is very much in line with current brain research, which indicates that the frontal cortex is insufficiently developed for toddlers or preschoolers to regulate their behavior in the ways some parents want. Children’s misbehavior or failure to comply may be merely an indication of their neurological immaturity, rather than wilful disobedience.

Lack of evidence for ‘strong’ positive child discipline

That’s the theory. Since the 1970s, more than 100 books have been published by educators, parents and individuals espousing this ‘strong’ version of positive discipline. But there is little evidence for its effectiveness. Prior research provides supporting evidence for some components of such parenting (e.g., being warm and responsive, avoiding corporal punishment, promoting cooperation), but there is little comprehensive, systematic research investigating the effectiveness of the approach.

This uncertainty about the best alternative to corporal punishment poses important questions for parents. Arguably, the sharpest contrast between the traditional form of chid discipline and the strong form of positive discipline can be illustrated in the concept of “time out”.

“Uncertainty about the best alternative to corporal punishment presents parents with an important question about how they should discipline their children.”

Putting children in “time out”—advocated by “lite” positive parenters —consists of punishing the child by secluding them for a short period (typically one minute per year of age) from all people, activities, and attention. In contrast, the “strong” positive parenters argue that time out is terrible technique because it undermines developing a good relationship with the child. Instead, they argue, parents should use “time-in.”

Debate over ‘time out’ versus ‘time in’ child discipline 

“Time in” involves quiet time together with the child, to allow the parent to calm the child down (if necessary) and then talk about the transgression. Depending on the child’s age, the child might sit on the parent’s lap or next to the parent. If the child is out of control, the parent should hold the child in a loving way until the child has self-regulated. The parent then should talk lovingly with the child about the offending behavior and explain how to behave better.

Thus, instead of secluding and isolating the child from relationships through “time out”, the parent connects with the child and tries to create a warm, open communication relationship.

Shifting parental practice on corporal punishment requires effective alternatives

No studies have examined the effectiveness of “time in”. I am now working with my graduate students to test whether the technique works. Evidence that it does could enhance the argument for abandoning corporal punishment by offering parents a non-punitive but effective alternative.

This work could have global significance. Beginning with Sweden in 1979, 54 countries have banned all forms of corporal punishment for children. The laws are largely motivated by the recognition of children’s right not to be hit—by anyone.

Based on the research evidence, as well as the moral imperative, it’s clear that policy makers and practitioners should steer parents away from hitting children. But the jury is still out on whether “lite” or “strong” positive parenting is the best approach for child discipline. We need better evidence to make that determination. Without such data, it may be difficult to convince some parents to give up physical discipline, despite the compelling case that corporal punishment does not contribute positively to child development.

The post Corporal punishment damages child development – parents should choose ‘positive child discipline’ instead appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The study used data on 4,240 boys from the larger and socially representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) in USA. About 20% of the sample was African American, 26% Hispanic and 54% Caucasian.

When the children were two years old, fathers reported on three aspects of fatherhood: warm and loving interactions, control and discipline, and home learning stimulation (e.g., reading with the child). When the children were three, they participated in cognitive tests (language and math) and test of social and emotional development (how much they engaged in a play exercise with their mother).

Fathers who showed warmth and who participated in home learning activities were more likely to have boys who had higher reading and math scores and who showed greater engagement with the game in the social and emotional development test. Paternal warmth predicted less negative behavior in the same test.

Only for African American fathers was there a link between increased control and discipline and a higher math score and a higher social and emotional development score.

This finding contradicts earlier studies, but those studies combined races and also sons and daughters, perhaps hiding variation by gender and race. There is a great deal of interest in the role that father-son relationships play in African American families, and other studies have shown that positive father-son relationships predict better behavior in school by African American boys.

This study also found that poverty reduced the link between paternal warmth and boys’ reading scores, corresponding with other evidence suggesting that affluence improves children’s literacy skills.

Though these aspects weren’t the focus of the study, the data also showed that the strongest predictor of boys’ cognitive and social emotional development was the level of education of both their mothers and fathers, and that the number of children living in the home was the strongest predictor of lower scores.

The post When African American fathers discipline their three-year-old sons more, the boys do better in math tests appeared first on Child and Family Blog.