Assertive Patterns

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 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 — 201
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15295190903290790
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
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.
PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 10: 157–201, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1529-5192 print / 1532-7922 online
DOI: 10.1080/15295190903290790
Effects of Preschool Parents’ Power Assertive

1532-7922 Science and Practice,
1529-5192
HPAR
Parenting: Practice Vol. 10, No. 3, May 2010: pp. 0–0
Patterns and Practices on Adolescent

Development
Diana Baumrind, Robert E. Larzelere, and Elizabeth B. Owens
Adolescent Larzelere,
Baumrind, effects of parents’
and Owenspreschool power assertion
Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 15:39 16 January 2011
SYNOPSIS
Objective. The authors investigated the effects of preschool patterns of parental authority on
adolescent competence and emotional health and differentiated between confrontive and coer-
cive power-assertive practices which accounted partially for differential long-term effects of the
preschool patterns. Design. Participants were 87 families initially studied when children were
preschool students, with outcomes assessed during early adolescence. Families were drawn
from Baumrind’s Family Socialization and Developmental Competence longitudinal program
of research. The authors used comprehensive observational and interview data to test hypothe-
ses relating preschool power-assertive practices and patterns of parental authority to the
children’s attributes as adolescents. Person-centered analyses contrasted adolescent attributes
associated with 7 preschool patterns of parental authority. The authors used variable-centered
analyses to investigate the differential effects of 5 coercive power-assertive practices that they
hypothesized 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 were
classified 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 detrimental
of the authoritarian-distinctive coercive power-assertive practices. Severe physical punishment
and arbitrary discipline were also authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental. Normative physi-
cal punishment and confrontive discipline were neither. Confrontive discipline and maturity
demands contributed to authoritative parenting’s effectiveness, whereas normative physical
punishment 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. Differential
outcomes can be partially attributed to the coercive practices of authoritarian parents versus the
confrontive practices of authoritative parents.
INTRODUCTION
In all societies a prime responsibility of parents is to socialize their children to conform

sufficiently to normative standards of conduct to function successfully in their commu-
nity. The short-range socialization objective of the exercise of parental authority is to
maintain 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,
158 BAUMRIND, LARZELERE, AND OWENS
self-regulated adult with the competence and emotional health to achieve prosocial
goals and interact effectively with others. The aims of the present observational study
are (1) to investigate how preschool patterns of parental authority contribute to adoles-
cents’ competence and emotional health and (2) to isolate and identify any differential
effects on these adolescent outcomes of their parents’ use of coercive versus confrontive
power-assertive disciplinary practices when their children were preschool students.
We sought to increase the causal relevance of our findings by controlling statistically
for suspected confounds and the alternative interpretations represented by those con-
founds, including preschool precursors of the adolescent attributes treated as outcomes
of preschool parental power-assertive practices.
Exercise of Parental Authority

Interpersonal power is the probability that one actor in a social relationship can
influence another to do something the other would not otherwise do (Weber, 1947).
Until relatively recently, parents’ right and responsibility to assert their interpersonal
power to regulate their children’s behavior was affirmed by social mores, beliefs, and
laws. Today, however, American conservatives and liberals debate parents’ right to
exercise authority in ways that restrict children’s freedom. Conservatives, representing
the stabilizing force in society, uphold hierarchical order, tradition, and permanence.
Conservative counselors such as Rosemond (1994) and Dobson (1992) advised parents
to compel children, by physical punishment when necessary, to submit their will to
adult authority (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). In sharp contrast, liberals, representing the
transformative force in society, uphold freedom, equality, novelty, and change. More
American experts today embrace liberal rather than conservative ideology (Haidt &
Graham, 2007; Redding, 2001; Wright & Cummings, 2005), and thus recommend
lenient 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 of
punishment or promise of reward.
Decades of cross-sectional research on Baumrind’s (1967; 1971a) parenting patterns
suggest that both conservative authoritarian and liberal permissive parenting patterns
are associated with more adverse child behaviors than the authoritative synthesis of
those 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 and
authoritative patterns are strict. Although both authoritative and authoritarian parents
use confrontive discipline, which is firm, direct, forceful, and consistent, authoritarian
parents differ from authoritative parents in that they also use coercive discipline, which
is 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),
ADOLESCENT EFFECTS OF PARENTS’ PRESCHOOL POWER ASSERTION 159
low agency (Kochanska, Padavich, & Koenig, 1996), emulation of parents’ coercive
behavior (Bandura, 1973; Patterson, 1982), and reactions of fear and aggression
(Hoffman, 1975). In contrast, Barber (2002a, 2002b) reported beneficial effects of power
assertion operationalized by confrontive but not coercive practices. The effects of con-
frontive discipline are likely to appear more detrimental than they actually are (see
Kohn, 2005; McCord, 1996; McGee, 1992) when confounded with the effects of coercive
kinds of power assertion that we hypothesize differentiate authoritarian from authori-
tative parents.
By defining the opposite extreme of her broadband dimension “gentle discipline” by
harsh negative discipline, with harsh negative discipline operationalized not only by
such clearly coercive practices as “threat”and “harsh physical intervention” but also by
forceful disciplinary practices such as “criticism” and “sharp command” that are con-
frontive but not coercive, Kochanska (1995, p. 603) blurred the distinction between
coercive and confrontive power assertion, a distinction that differentiates authoritative
from authoritarian parents. To discern the proposed differential effects of these distinct
kinds of power assertion we treat confrontive and several kinds of coercive power
assertion as separate dimensions, rather than as a single bipolar dimension extending
from 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 effects
on 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 to
modify behavior; and c) administered with an opened hand to the extremities or but-
tocks” (Friedman & Schonberg, 1996, p. 853). Severe physical punishment is outside the
normative 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 of
severe physical punishment and for the coercive forms of power assertion with which
confrontive 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 or
directive parents: (1) unqualified power assertion, (2) arbitrary discipline, (3) psychological
control, (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 unqualified
by reasoned explanation to demand prompt compliance unmitigated by compensatory
gratification or reciprocal encouragement of the child’s initiative and to enforce a child’s
subordinate status in a rigidly hierarchical family system.
Arbitrary discipline. Hoffman (1983) differentiated between arbitrary and rational

power-assertive practices. Rational power assertion is characterized by coherent, predict-
able consequences, clearly communicated planful directives and consideration of a
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 comply
when parents initially use reasoning to increase children’s understanding of their par-
ents’ directive or perspective, but readily modify their responses to persistent defiance
with increasingly forceful contingencies. At the level of discipline incidents, Larzelere
and his colleagues (Larzelere & Merenda, 1994; Larzelere, Sather, Schneider, Larson, &
Pike, 1998; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996) found that, in contrast with
either alone, a combination of reasoning and increasingly assertive consequences, con-
sistent with the authoritative model, was optimal for reducing noncompliance and
aggression 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 behavioral
control (direct, overt, confrontive, and aimed at inducing compliance with parental
directives) 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 or
guilt induction” (p. 903) support children’s autonomy, adding that the less the child “is
manipulated by guilt-inducing techniques of discipline or indirect threats of loss of
love which condition his behavior while bypassing his conscious will, the more capable
he 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) found
no beneficial effects of psychological control, whether operationalized by the child’s
perception of being controlled (Steinberg, 2005) or the personal domain over which
control 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 as
toddlers, 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 of
short-term compliance, the effects of even mild physical punishment are detrimental.
However, Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) concluded from their meta-analysis that the
effects 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 effects
of other common disciplinary actions such as timeout and verbal reprimands.
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 components
of the expressed emotion scale. Vostanis, Nicholls, and Harrington (1994) found that
maternal 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 a
sibling to manifest delinquent behaviors 2 years later. Johnson et al. (2001) found that
verbal 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 the
child (Moore & Pepler, 2006) have been shown to be a potent contributor to children’s
maladjustment (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 highly
correlated forms of power assertion are seldom analyzed separately. Yelling, belittling,
sarcasm, and pointless disapproving “nattering” (Patterson, 1982, p. 69) are wounding
words 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 represented
by 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 are
acquiescent 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 different
child outcomes (Davidov & Grusec, 2006), there is consensus that moderate to high
responsiveness in all its instantiations is an essential criterion of high-quality parenting
across cultures (Barber et al., 2005; Rohner & Britner, 2002), promoting in children a
sense of security that contributes to their mental health, autonomy, and prosocial
behaviors (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993; Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994).
However, Baumrind (1967, 1971a, 1991b) reported that high responsiveness, although
clearly beneficial when conjoined with high demandingness in an authoritative config-
uration, was not beneficial when conjoined with low demandingness in a permissive
configuration. 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 require
mature behavior and participation in household chores. How power assertion is mani-
fested to enforce demands for desired behavior should moderate its effects. When
demandingness is manifested by the five coercive authoritarian-distinctive kinds of
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 demanding
practices, 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 is
more meaningful to talk about the effects of patterns of parental authority than about
the effects of single parental variables” because “without certain other conditions being
present. . . the strength or direction of an expected parent–child relationship might well
be 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, and
authoritative. Authoritarian parents, similar to Baldwin’s autocratic parents, are highly
demanding but not responsive; permissive parents, similar to Baldwin’s democratic
parents, are highly responsive but not demanding; authoritative parents are both
highly 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) three
correlated dimensions of firm versus lax behavioral control (i.e., demandingness),
acceptance versus rejection (i.e., responsiveness), and psychological autonomy versus
psychological control. Authoritative parents are highly demanding, responsive, and
autonomy-supportive (low psychological control). Directorial parents (who are more
demanding than responsive) and lenient parents (who are more responsive than
demanding) are each subdivided, based primarily on level of demanding-responsive
imbalance. 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 into
those who are low-demanding and high-responsive (permissive) and those who are
moderate-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 on
social ideology with directorial parents more conservative than lenient parents.
Authoritarian parents are expected to be the most conservative and permissive parents
the most liberal. However, social ideology is expected to not affect adolescent outcomes
beyond the effects of parents’ childrearing practices.
Minimizing Sources of Invalidity

To buttress an interpretation of our findings on power assertive effects as causally
relevant, we minimize the following sources of invalidity: (1) method and rater biases,
(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 through
which 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 include
nonnormativeness, same-source bias, and selection bias.
The effects of parenting practices that are nonnormative are typically qualitatively
larger 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 Tactics
Scale measuring abusive violence (kicking, throwing something, and beating up) that
fall outside the range of the normal home environment. We differentiate between the
possible 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-source
bias tends to inflate associations between power-assertive practices and adverse child
outcomes (Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968). We have eliminated same-source bias by
using 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’ prosocial
behavior in Baumrind’s (1971a, 1971b) cross-sectional correlational analyses could be
attributed to uncontrolled differences in children’s preexisting disposition to behave
prosocially, instead of to parents’ firm control. Similarly, as Baumrind, Larzelere, and
Cowan (2002) asserted, the apparent harmful effects of physical punishment on chil-
dren’s adjustment in most of the primary studies Gershoff (2002) reviewed were
inflated 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, in
some analyses, for externalizing behavior problems.
Definitional ambiguity. Definitional ambiguity involves using the same word for
what may be fundamentally different constructs or behaviors. This practice remains a
major impediment to evaluating differential effects of distinctive kinds of power-
assertive disciplinary practices. We regard the distinction between coercive and
confrontive power assertion as crucial to explaining the contrasting effects of author-
itarian and authoritative parenting. However, many investigators in practice do not
make that distinction. For example, by treating all kinds of behavioral control and
autonomy support as binary opposites, Grolnick (2003) precludes the possibility that dis-
ciplinary interventions by some parents could best be characterized as both autonomy
supportive and behaviorally controlling. A feature of authoritative parents distinguish-
ing them from authoritarian parents is that they are both autonomy supportive and
behaviorally controlling; that is, they are high on behavioral control but not coercive. By
our definition, authoritative parents are confrontive but not coercive, whereas authoritarian
parents are both coercive and confrontive, and thus adversely “controlling.”
Inadequate data. Although observational and interview data are acknowledged to

provide more valid and comprehensive information on socialization practices and their
effects than sole reliance on self-reports, most nonexperimental studies of socialization
effects 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 psychological
control 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 that
Steinberg (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 authority
during preschool on adolescent competence and emotional health because in contrast
with 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. We
operationalize emotional health as low incidence of problem behaviors and competence as
an 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 human
existence, correspond to the two orthogonal axes that emerge from most factor analyses
of human behavior (e.g., Baumrind & Black, 1967; Lonner, 1980; Wiggins, 1979). Our
hypotheses instantiate the general proposition that there are theoretically meaningful
differential 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 directive
families, adolescents from authoritarian families will lack competence and emotional
health, although all three groups of parents are highly behaviorally controlling, as
assessed by confrontive discipline. Similarly, we hypothesize that in contrast with
adolescents from authoritative and democratic families, adolescent outcomes for per-
missive families will be adverse, although all three groups of parents are highly
responsive. 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 is
implied by these hypotheses that, to maximize the beneficial effects of a high level of
behavioral control, parents must not also be coercive, and to maximize the beneficial
effects of a high level of responsiveness parents must also use at least average levels of
behavioral control and household management.
Typological analyses: Evaluating the effects of parenting patterns. We theorize that the
balance between demandingness (what parents require of a child in terms of obedience,
maturity demands, and household help) and responsiveness (what parents offer a child
in terms of affection and autonomy support) and commitment (high levels of both
demandingness and responsiveness) will be significant determinants of the differential
long-term effects of parenting patterns on children’s competence and emotional health.
To test this superordinate hypothesis, we aggregate the seven patterns of parental
authority into two supergroups and an intermediate good enough group, on the basis of
their relative approximations to the authoritative prototype exemplifying the ideal par-
ent who is both balanced and committed. By definition, authoritative parents use high
levels of both responsiveness and the specific forms of demandingness expected to be
beneficial, namely household management and behavioral control.
The supergroup labeled balanced-committed consists of authoritative parents and the
two 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. The
supergroup labeled imbalanced-uncommitted consists of the three patterns farthest in fit
from 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-demanding
and 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-committed
supergroup during the preschool period to be significantly more beneficial than for
adolescents from families in the imbalanced-uncommitted supergroup. As their name
suggests, 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 parenting
styles as possible mediators of the effects of preschool parenting styles on adolescent
outcomes to determine whether the distal T1 supergroups predict T3 outcomes beyond
that predicted by more proximal parenting effects, an affirmative answer signifying
that 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 the
largest differences relative to imbalanced-uncommitted families, the smallest dif-
ferences relative to other balanced-committed families, and moderate differences
relative to good enough families.
Hypothesis 2: Adolescent outcomes for different patterns of behaviorally controlling
families (i.e., authoritative, directive, authoritarian) will differ significantly,
depending on whether parents are also coercive. In contrast with adolescents
from authoritarian families (who are coercive) adolescents from authoritative and
directive families (who are not coercive) are expected to be well-adjusted.
Hypothesis 3: Adolescent outcomes for the three different patterns of families who
are 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 assert
behavioral control, but favorable for democratic and authoritative families
because 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 than
for authoritarian families because authoritarian families rely on coercive forms of
power assertion that we hypothesize are never beneficial, whereas the high
responsiveness and low coerciveness of permissive families may be beneficial and

protective 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 the
harmful effects of authoritarian parenting. We also evaluate the effects of low levels of
behavioral control which could account in part for the detrimental effects of permissive
parenting compared with authoritative and democratic parenting.
Variable analyses: Evaluating variants of power assertion. We expect the effects of high
demandingness to differ depending on how demandingness is operationalized by the
different variants of power assertion. (Household management is a demandingness

variable used as a pattern definer but is not a power-assertive variable.) When
demandingness 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 qualify
empirically 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 set
of comprehensive net-effects analyses to determine the effects of each after controlling
for 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 contrast
with spanking, is included among coercive forms of power assertion which we expect
to be authoritarian-distinctive and detrimental. We expect no detrimental effects of
spanking (i.e., normative physical punishment).
Last, we expect parents’ social ideology to affect children’s competence and mental
health only by affecting parents’ childrearing practices. We expect allegiance to either
conservative 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 be
included in regular classrooms.
Participants were recruited from among all children attending 13 nursery schools in
Berkeley, California, and its environs in the 1960s. Exclusionary criteria included
teacher report of significant psychopathology in the child, child IQ of less than 95, only
one parent in the home, and child less than 3 years old. Remaining were 150 families
who agreed to participate in the home visit phase of the study, representing more than
half of the families from the 13 nursery schools. The 16 African American children and
families who took part in the FSP at Time 1 (T1) were excluded from our analyses
because the parent–child relationship patterns were not the same as for the European
American families at T1, and therefore they were not followed longitudinally. (Data
regarding these African American families are available in Baumrind, 1972.)
Consequently, the original T1 FSP sample comprised 60 European American girls and
74 European American boys and their families. Fathers had an average of 18 years of
education 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. At
Time 3 (T3) 84 of the families seen at T2 were retained, and three not seen at T2 (but had
been seen at T1) were seen at T3, resulting in 87 families (65% of those who began the
study at T1) providing data at T3. For the majority of analyses in this article, data from
the 87 families (48 boys, 39 girls) seen at T1 and T3 were used. Analyses also involving
T2 data have an n of 82, because of missing parenting data for two families (the children
were 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 and
5.1 years; at T2, M = 9.0 (SD = .64 years, range = 7.6 to 11.3 years), with 89% from 8.1 to
9.6 years; at T3, M = 15.1 (SD = .48 years, range = 13.8 to 16.9 years), with 90% from
14.5 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 showed
no significant differences on baseline parent and child variables used in this study.
Procedures
Data were collected using multiple methods in multiple settings. To increase ecological
validity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) our raters relied on records of participants’ behavior in
several natural environments. Specifically, information about parents and children was
derived from extended direct observation in home, classroom, school playground, and in
a 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 were
conducted by highly trained professional psychologists. To prevent bias from shared
source variance, observers/interviewers differed for the child and his or her parents, and
differed across time points for each participant. At each time point, children were
observed, interviewed, and tested for approximately 20 hr, and parents were observed,
interviewed, and tested for about 30 hr. Subsequently, using the case records (transcripts
of the entire battery of interviews, observations, and tests at a particular time point), the
primary observers/interviewers for each family completed project-designed Q-sorts and
Likert-type scales for children, and Likert-type rating scales for parents. The items at each
time 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
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 empirically
based. Therefore, this section begins with descriptions of project-designed measures
applied separately to children and parents, and follows with empirical procedures
used to derive specific child and parent variables from the items in these measures.
Project-designed child measures. Observers completed the 72-item Preschool Behavior

Q-Sort (Baumrind, 1968b) at T1 and the 90-item Adolescent Q-Sort (1978a) at T3. They
also 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 successive
developmental 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 with
ratings made by a separate, trained observer. At T1, about 25% of participants were
Q-sorted by a reliability rater who had done extensive observation of the child. The
interrater reliabilities for items across observers averaged .68, with 10% less than .60
and 10% greater than .80. At T3, each adolescent was double-rated with an average
item 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 with
low reliabilities (.60 or less) did not show a sufficiently high pattern of intercorrelation
with other items to contribute to the final variables (see Appendix A), whereas items
with 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 T1
and 21 at T3. Again, with each successive developmental stage additional items were
included to match the increasingly differentiated status of the maturing child. Items
from this measure were used to create separate T1 and T3 child and adolescent behavior
problem 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 the

primary observer/interviewer on Likert-type scales. Measures included the 81-item
Mother and Father Preschool Rating Scales at T1 and the 174-item Rating Scales for
Parents of Adolescent Children at T3. The latter was composed of behavior rating scale
items 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 Parent
Attitude Inquiry, a 113-item project-designed measure of childrearing ideology, from
which we derived the variable promotes conformity and Obedience (for more information
about 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 by
a 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 reliability
observer/interviewer. Interrater reliabilities for the Rating Scales for Parents of
Adolescent Children items at T3 ranged from .48 to .96 with a median of .86. The items
with 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 not
been assessed with original FSP measures. At each time period these ratings (except for
one 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 and
the descriptions of home observations of the entire family. All but 18 families seen at T1
were rated by two coders from among teams of 4 to 6 coders at each time period (those
18 were not seen at T2 or T3). Interrater reliability for each item was then assessed in
terms 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. Agreements
across raters were calculated separately for mothers and fathers. When the interrater
agreement for mothers and fathers was less than 70%, we omitted the item from further
analyses (11 items at T1 and 11 at T3). For the remaining items, weighted (exact = 1; off
by 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 averaged
84%, with a range of 74% to 100%; at T3 for mothers, agreement averaged 82%, with a
range of 73% to 98%; at T3 for fathers, agreement averaged 85%, with a range of 73% to
99%. Final item scores were created by averaging across raters.
Derivation of Child Variables

Although hypothetical constructs were initially used to develop the child items, the
variables we analyzed were determined by empirical reduction using BC TRY cluster
analytic techniques (Tryon & Bailey, 1966) and principal component analyses using the
item-level data from the aforementioned Q-sorts, Likert-type rating scales, and Child
Problem Behavior Scale. All final variable scores were transformed into standardized
T 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 outcomes
included a cognitive effort variable (cognitive competence), a communal variable
(communal competence), and two agency variables (individuation and self-efficacy), as
well as externalizing problems and internalizing problems. These were derived via the
BC 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 was
calculated using a one-component solution from principal components analysis of the
90 Adolescent Q-sort items and the cognitive and physical functioning items from the
Adolescent 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, accepts
responsibility for own failures, exerts maximum effort in intellectual tasks, proud of
accomplishments, 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
were more than five cases with nonzero values. In addition to the 20 items comprising
the internalizing problem behavior and externalizing problem behavior scales (see
Appendix A), the total problems score included 59 other items reflecting (1) internaliz-
ing problems (e.g., anxious or fearful, fears specific objects, somatizes) and externalizing
problems (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 adolescent

outcomes (general competence, total problems, and the six specific outcomes) were
created 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 were
initially observed. For brevity, the specific items comprising these T1 covariates are not
detailed, but information regarding the cluster analysis of child items at T1 is available
in Baumrind (1971a). The T1 externalizing problems variable was used to control for
selection bias in certain analyses of power-assertive variables.
T1 child IQ. Child IQ was measured at T1 using the full-scale score from the
Stanford-Binet Form LM (Terman & Merrill, 1960).
Derivation of T1 Parent Variables

As was true for the child variables, hypothetical constructs were initially used to
develop the parent items, and the variables we analyzed were constructed by empirical
analysis. Scores for mothers and fathers were combined at either the item or variable
level, producing single parent or combined parenting variables for each family. All final
variable 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 Father
Preschool Rating Scales were grouped to yield a set of correlated clusters via the BC
TRY cluster analysis procedure. Also, seven items from the Family Behavior Problem
Checklist were used to calculate the Intrusive variable (see Appendix B). The following
five T1 variables resulting from these analyses were used and are detailed in Appendix
B (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 and
encourages independence and individuation [reversed] variables; r = −.12, ns).
Variables derived from the PDRS. Three variables (see Appendix B, Section III) were
derived from empirical reduction of mother and father items from the PDRS: arbitrary
discipline, verbal hostility, and physical punishment. All items were rated on 3-point
scales, except for the last of three items comprising the physical punishment variable that
was rated on a 5-point scale. Mother and father items were averaged to create each of the
three 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
total physical punishment and physical punishment intensity were more than 1 SD
greater than the mean. Physical punishment intensity was the average of two PDRS
items about (1) using an object for paddling or striking the head or torso and (2) lifting
and throwing or shaking the child. Average rates of physical punishment intensity in
this sample were very low (1.08 at T1 on the 1- to 3-point scale), with most families
displaying no intensity even at the highest frequency of total physical punishment.
Last, normative physical punishment (or spanking) was measured by total physical
punishment only in those families who did not use severe physical punishment. That
is, 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 physical
punishment; see Appendix B) at T1 were removed. A family was included in the severe
physical punishment group when their scores on total physical punishment and physi-
cal punishment intensity, each of which had been averaged across parents, were both
greater 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 for
father) derived from the Mother and Father Preschool Behavior Scale items. For the
sake of brevity, the items comprising these first-order factors are not described, but
details can be found in Baumrind (1971a). In the second-order principal component
analysis, two primary factors were extracted: demandingness and responsiveness (for
conceptual definitions of both factors, see “Patterns of Parental Authority” under the
Introduction 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-order
factors. More detail about the original derivation of parental types is available in
Baumrind (1991b).
At T2 and T3, identical procedures were used to type parents. However, items on the
parent behavior scales varied somewhat from time point to time point to reflect how
parenting practices and behaviors change with the increasing developmental maturity
of the child. Consequently, the items comprising the first-order factors and the names of
those factors changed somewhat from time point to time point. Ultimately, the second-
order demandingness and responsiveness factors derived from them were conceptually
coherent and, with the exception of T1 to T3 demandingness, moderately correlated
across 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 were
r = .47, p < .001 (T1 to T2), r = .41, p < .001 (T2 to T3), r = .14, ns (T1 to T3). Effective
demandingness during preschool may reduce the need for demandingness in adolescence.
Other parent variables. T1 parental education was rated on a 9-point scale ranging
from 1 (high School diploma) to 9 (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., or Ed.D). Separate ratings were made
for 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 home
with their children, socioeconomic status was indexed by rating father’s occupational
status 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 Inquiry
items: 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.
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 varied
overall by supergroups, by five demographic variables, and by two-way Supergroup ×
Demographic interactions. Statistical power was maximized by using supergroups
instead of specific parenting patterns and by considering one demographic variable at
a 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 for
the 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 T3
outcomes. In the final MANCOVA of supergroups, child IQ and supergroups both
predicted 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 that
IQ was a significant predictor of general competence, F(1, 76) = 4.71, p < .05; cognitive
competence, 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 analyses
of those four outcomes in this study. This final model was successfully replicated in a
MANCOVA 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 those
outcomes. 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 parenting
patterns by attrition status, c2(6, N = 134) = 1.13, ns. Thus, the attrition families did not
differ 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 child
IQ where warranted (see Table 1). Externalizing problems differed marginally by
supergroups, F(2, 83) = 2.43, p < .10. Pairwise comparisons indicated that, as hypothe-
sized, adolescents from balanced-committed families had significantly better outcomes
than those from imbalanced-uncommitted families on all outcomes except for external-
izing problems, ps < .05 (all pairwise comparisons used Fisher’s Least Significant
Difference Test). Adolescents from good enough families had significantly better
outcomes 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
TABLE 1
Mean Adolescent Outcomes Associated With Parenting Patterns During Preschool (Standard Errors)
General Cognitive Communal Total Externalizing Internalizing

Preschool Parenting Pattern n Competencea Individuateda Self-Efficacya Competencea Competenceb Problemsb Problemsb Problemsb
Supergroups
Balanced-committed 38 54.61 54.21 54.71 53.61 53.71 46.71 47.6c 47.11
(1.39) (1.45) (1.47) (1.49) (1.47) (1.34) (1.52) (1.42)
Good enough 17 51.61 50.40 51.30 51.51 50.50 49.60 50.2 47.31
(2.12) (2.20) (2.24) (2.27) (2.19) (2.10) (2.32) (2.17)
Imbalanced-uncommitted 32 45.0−2 46.3−1 46.2−1 45.1−2 46.1−1 53.1−1 52.6c 53.8−2
(1.55) (1.61) (1.64) (1.66) (1.59) (1.54) (1.69) (1.61)
F(2, 83)d 10.51*** 6.66** 7.28** 7.24** 6.09** 4.85* 2.43e 5.27**
η2 .20 .14 .15 .15 .13 .11 .06 .11
Specific parenting patterns
Authoritative 6 57.02 59.24 56.31 56.12 54.31 44.71 45.0 46.31
(3.47) (3.68) (3.79) (3.81) (3.45) (3.31) (3.92) (3.49)
Democratic 17 52.21 52.11 55.53 52.02 50.50 47.71 49.2 47.51
(2.03) (2.18) (2.24) (2.26) (2.02) (1.96) (2.31) (2.07)
Directive 15 56.53 54.72 53.11 54.42 57.23 46.31 46.7 47.01
(2.16) (2.31) (2.38) (2.40) (2.16) (2.12) (2.46) (2.22)
Authoritarian 13 40.5−5 44.4−3 44.6−3 43.8−4 39.7−6 57.2−5 52.5 58.4−5
(2.47) (2.65) (2.73) (2.75) (2.31) (2.32) (2.74) (2.39)
Good enough 17 51.81 50.4−1 51.30 51.51 50.50 49.51 50.1 47.41
(2.07) (2.21) (2.28) (2.30) (2.03) (2.08) (2.37) (2.14)
(Continued)
173
174
TABLE 1
(Continued)
General Cognitive Communal Total Externalizing Internalizing

Preschool Parenting Pattern n Competencea Individuateda Self-Efficacya Competencea Competenceb Problemsb Problemsb Problemsb
Permissive 9 46.7−2 46.2−2 46.8−1 44.1−3 50.21 50.01 52.6 51.00

(2.83) (3.06) (3.13) (3.13) (2.78) (2.71) (3.18) (2.88)
Disengaged 10 48.80 48.6−1 47.6−1 47.70 50.71 50.80 52.9 50.11
(2.64) (2.83) (2.93) (2.94) (2.64) (2.66) (3.04) (2.79)
F(6, 79)d 5.13*** 2.90* 2.59* 2.72* 5.38*** 2.66* 0.96 2.92*
η2 .28 .18 .17 .17 .29 .17 .07 .18
Note. All adolescent outcomes are scaled so that M = 50 and SD = 10. The subscripts show the net number of significant pairwise comparisons for each parenting
pattern on each adolescent outcome, using Fisher’s least significant difference procedure, p < .05. The sign indicates whether that parenting pattern is associated
with mostly significantly better (+) or worse (–) levels of that adolescent outcome. For example, the subscript of 1 attached to the value of 54.6 in the upper left-hand
corner of the table indicates that mean general competence was significantly higher for the balanced-committed supergroup than for one other supergroup. Itali-
cized subscripts indicate that a mean is significantly better than at least one other mean but significantly worse than at least one other mean.
a
Controlling for IQ as well as the T1 version of the outcome variable.
b
Controlling for only the T1 version of the outcome variable.
c
Two supergroups differed at p < .05, but the overall F was only marginally significant (p < .10).
d
The denominator degrees of freedom are reduced by one for analyses incorporating IQ as an additional covariate.
e
p < .10.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
for T1 precursors of the adolescent outcomes and child IQ where warranted, Fs(6, 78 or
79) > 2.58, ps < .05 (see Table 1). Authoritative and directive parenting patterns were
associated with the highest levels of general competence and the lowest levels of total
problems in adolescence. In sharp contrast, authoritarian parenting was associated
with the most adverse levels of general competence and of total problems in adoles-
cence. The other parenting patterns were associated with intermediate levels of these
two 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 was
very large (d = 1.34). The parenting patterns were ranked in the same order on mean
specific 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 groups
on problem outcomes was also very large (d = 0.98).
Specific a priori contrasts. In view of the small cell sizes, degree of departure from the
null hypothesis must be large for the a priori hypotheses to be significant at the .05
level. The first a priori hypothesis predicted that adolescent outcomes would be best in
authoritative families, with small differences relative to the other balanced-committed
families (i.e., democratic and directive), moderate differences relative to good enough
families, and larger differences relative to imbalanced-uncommitted families (i.e.,
authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged). Results were generally consistent with this
hypothesis (see Table 1). The adolescent outcomes in authoritative families, although
generally better, never differed significantly from those in democratic or directive fami-
lies. Adolescents with authoritative parents at T1 had significantly better outcomes than
adolescents with authoritarian parents on all outcomes except externalizing problems,
all ps < .05. They were significantly higher than children with permissive parents on
general competence, cognitive competence, and individuation but significantly higher
than children with disengaged or good enough parents only on individuation, ps < .05.
The second a priori hypothesis predicted differential adolescent outcomes for the three
parenting patterns (authoritarian, authoritative, directive) high on confrontive discipline
(a noncoercive form of demandingness). As predicted, adolescents from authoritarian
families had significantly worse outcomes than those from either authoritative or directive
families on all outcomes except for externalizing problems (see Table 1). The ordering of
mean outcomes for all seven parenting patterns showed adverse long-term effects of high
confrontive discipline during the preschool years on adolescent outcomes (individuation
and self-efficacy) only when parents’ responsiveness was low, including low autonomy
support (encourages independence and individuation), as for authoritarian parents.
The third hypothesis involved comparisons among the three parenting patterns
highest on responsiveness: authoritative, democratic, and permissive. As predicted,
adolescents from permissive families had worse outcomes than adolescents from
authoritative or democratic families (see Table 1): Adolescents from permissive fami-
lies had significantly lower cognitive competence than those from either authoritative
or democratic families; they were also significantly lower on general competence and
individuation than adolescents from authoritative families, and on self-efficacy com-
pared with adolescents from democratic families, ps < .05. Responsiveness had long-term
beneficial effects on autonomy outcomes (individuation and self-efficacy) only when

combined with medium-to-high levels of demandingness.
The fourth hypothesis was that adolescent outcomes would be less adverse for
permissive 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% of
the significant pairwise comparisons among all seven parenting patterns indicated that
the outcomes of authoritarian parenting compared unfavorably with another parenting
pattern, 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-committed
parenting patterns, whereas authoritarian parenting compared unfavorably with all

the 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 the
result of the effects of subsequent parenting patterns. To investigate this possibility, we
tested 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 for
testing 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 that
T1 parenting patterns must predict the proposed mediator, in this case later parenting
patterns. 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. Stability
across 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 same
supergroup 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 enough
parents remained in that group, whereas 36% moved to balanced-committed and 34% to
imbalanced-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 crucial
third test for partial mediation, namely whether either T2 or T3 supergroups predicted T3
outcomes beyond that predicted by T1 supergroups. For brevity, Table 2 presents only the
results for the comprehensive outcome measures, but the results were similar for the six
specific 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 both
comprehensive 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 T1
supergroups in Baron and Kenny’s (1986) third test. The fourth test, however, failed to
TABLE 2
Hierarchical 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 1
T1 Preexisting differencesa .09 .37*** .23***
T1 Stanford-Binet IQ score .13 .09*
Step 2
T1 Balanced-committed patternsbc .47*** −.34**
T1 Good enough patternc .24* .21***d −.13 .09**d
Step 3
T2 Balanced-committed patternsbc .14 −.09
T2 Good enough patternc −.01 .02 −.09 .01
Step 1
T1 Preexisting differencesa .09 .32** .26***
T1 Stanford-Binet IQ score .11 .13**
Step 2
T1 Balanced-committed patternsbc .33** −.28*
T1 Good enough patternc .17e .18***d −.14 .08*d
Step 3
T3 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, whereas
the changes in R2 are for the step in which those predictors were first added. T1 = Time 1. T2 = Time 2. T3 = Time 3.
a
Preexisting differences were measured by the T1 variable of the same name.
b
Authoritative, Democratic, and Directive parenting patterns.
c
The imbalanced-uncommitted parenting patterns constituted the referent group for this indicator
(dummy) code.
d
The change in R2 was also significant when the two indicator codes for T1 supergroups were entered
last, p < .05.
e
p < .10.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
support full mediation in that T1 supergroups continued to predict variance in the two
comprehensive T3 outcomes significantly beyond that predicted by the T3 super-
groups. When T1 supergroups were entered last, the change in R2 was .07 for general
competence, p < .01, and .05 for total problems, p < .05.
Overall, T1 supergroups predicted T3 outcomes beyond that predicted by either
intermediate or concurrent parenting supergroups. Although the effect of T1 parenting
was 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 effects
of concurrent parenting.
Detrimental Power Assertion Versus Beneficial Power Assertion

The remaining analyses were designed to clarify which variables could account for
the distinctive adolescent outcomes of early parenting patterns. Of particular interest
were contrasts between the highly demanding parenting patterns that were associated
with beneficial (authoritative and directive) versus adverse (authoritarian) outcomes.

Although these parenting patterns differed in responsiveness, the differences in the
kinds of power assertion they used may also account for their notable differences in
adolescent 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 assertion
that could account for the adverse outcomes of authoritarian parenting. These analyses
also served to identify kinds of power assertion that were beneficial or neutral when they
were not confounded with the detrimental forms of power assertion. Specifically, we
focused on possible differences in the effects of confrontive and coercive kinds of power
assertion, and of normative and severe physical punishment. We expected the effects of
confrontive 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 analyses

investigated our hypotheses that authoritarian parents would differ from other pre-
school parenting patterns on the five kinds of power assertion considered coercive but
not on two forms of power assertion not considered coercive (confrontive discipline
and spanking). Parenting patterns were also compared on household management
(a form of demandingness, but not of power assertion), and on promoting conformity
and 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 were
large. Thus these five variables qualify as authoritarian-distinctive on empirical as well as
conceptual grounds. The difference was more than 1 SD between authoritarian parents
and the average of authoritatives and directives on psychological control (a difference of
1.2 SDs), unqualified power assertion (1.1 SD difference), verbal hostility (1.1 SD), and
arbitrary 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 these
variables 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 Exact
Test (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 and
directives (–0.8 SD difference), but differed significantly only from authoritatives, p < .05.
The parenting patterns also differed predictably on social ideology (see Table 3, promotes
conformity), with authoritarian and directive parents the most conservative, permissive
and democratic parents the most liberal, and authoritative parents at the mean.
Outcomes of power-assertive variables with and without authoritarian parents. The second
set of analyses compared how strongly the adolescent outcomes were predicted by the T1
power assertive variables after controlling for preexisting T1 differences, first in the full
sample and then after dropping authoritarian families from the analyses. Together these
analyses tested our hypotheses that only the five authoritarian-distinctive forms of power
assertion would have adverse effects that generalized beyond authoritarian families. The
last five columns of Table 4 list the standardized regression coefficients predicting the six
TABLE 3
Concurrent Parenting Characteristics of Preschool Parenting Patterns
Unqualified Total Severe Physical

Preschool Confrontive Household Power Arbitrary Psychological Verbal Physical Punishment Promotes
Parenting Style n Disciplinea Managementa Responsivea Assertiona Discipline Controla Hostility Punishmentb (n) Conformity
Authoritative 6 61.84 62.06 55.44 47.9−2 47.1−2 44.0−3 47.5−1 50.90 0 50.1−1
Democratic 17 49.4−1 52.11 58.04 43.2−4 46.4−2 43.2−4 49.2−1 46.7−2 1 45.8−2
Directive 15 59.24 54.81 48.3−1 56.73 49.3−2 56.74 49.6−1 53.82 0 56.03
Authoritarian 13 59.24 50.21 39.9−5 63.46 60.15 62.04 59.95 59.33 5 59.54
Good enough 17 47.8−1 50.81 48.3−1 49.10 45.9−2 49.1−2 46.8−2 48.8−1 0 45.8−2
Permissive 9 34.3−6 38.7−5 58.44 41.2−4 44.9−2 47.4−3 47.8−1 42.6−3 0 42.3−3
Disengaged 10 40.6−4 39.1−5 40.4−5 53.81 62.65 60.24 57.11 53.31 1 52.21
F(6, 80)c 87 33.32*** 11.37*** 19.13*** 16.42*** 7.67*** 14.10*** 3.02* 4.13** 20.53**d 6.46***
Note. All parenting characteristics are scaled so that M = 50 and SD = 10. The subscripts show the net number of significant pairwise comparisons for each
parenting pattern on each parenting characteristic, using Fisher’s least signficant difference procedure, p < .05. The sign indicates whether that parenting pattern is
associated with mostly significantly higher (+) or lower (–) levels of that parenting characteristic. For example, the subscript of 4 attached to the value of 61.8 in the
upper left-hand corner of the table indicates that authoritative parents were significantly higher than four other parenting patterns on confrontive discipline.
Subscripts are italicized for any mean that is both significantly higher and significantly lower than at least one other mean.
a
This characteristic, or a major component of it, loaded at least .60 on one of the second-order factors that provided the major means of defining the parenting
patterns.
b
Total physical punishment is the measure for the entire sample, whereas normative physical punishment is the same measure after dropping the 7 parents who
used severe physical punishment.
c
F(6, 77) for promotes conformity.
d 2
χ (6, N = 87).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
179
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 except
authoritarian families. In addition to preexisting differences on the outcome variables
and on IQ when warranted, the T1 covariates included externalizing problems to control
for selection bias as a result of effects of child misbehavior in estimating the apparent
effects 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 T1
covariates, 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 significantly
detrimental 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 for
T1 preexisting differences and dropping authoritarian families, verbal hostility had the
largest mean detrimental effect size across the six outcomes (mean b = −.17, bottom row of
Table 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 fact
had 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 discipline
were omitted from the comprehensive multiple regression analyses because they never
accounted for significant additional variance beyond that predicted by verbal hostility.
In sharp contrast with the authoritarian-distinctive power-assertive variables (except
for unqualified power assertion), household management (a demandingness, but not
power-assertive variable) and confrontive discipline (a power-assertive demandingness
variable) had mostly beneficial effects (see columns 1 and 2 of Table 4). After controlling
for relevant T1 variables, confrontive discipline and household management were each
significantly 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 in
authoritarian families by the authoritarian-distinctive kinds of power assertion also used
in these families. In contrast, household management was associated with as many bene-
ficial outcomes in the full sample as in the nonauthoritarian subsample, indicating that
authoritarian parents were suppressing the positive effects of confrontive discipline, but
not of household management. This was because authoritarian parents were high on con-
frontive discipline but were only average on household management (see Table 3).
1
It 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 of
parenting 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.
TABLE 4
Standardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Specific T3 Outcomes From T1 Demandingness Variables With and Without T1 Authoritarian Families or
With and Without Families Using Severe Physical Punishment, Controlling for T1 Covariates
Authoritarian-Distinctive Power Assertion
T3 Outcome Confrontive Household Physical Severe Physical Verbal Psychological Arbitrary Unqualified
(Sample) N Discipline Management Punishmenta Punishment Hostility Control Discipline Power Assertion
Individuationb
Full sample 87 .22* .26** −.14 −.12 −.24* −.21e −.03 −.14
No authoritarians 74 .32** .26* −.12 −.04 −.22e −.14 .05 −.05
Self-efficacyb
Full sample 87 .19e .28** −.19e −.14 −.30** −.33** −.20e −.11
No authoritarians 74 .27* .30** −.16 −.18 −.36*** −.27* −.25* −.06
Cognitive competenceb
Full sample 87 .20e .27** −.03 −.18 −.14 −.17 −.10 −.01
No authoritarians 74 .30** .33** .00 −.23e −.13 −.20 −.09 .11
Communal competence
Full sample 87 .00 .09 −.12 −.22* −.27** −.18 −.22* −.09
No authoritarians 74 .19e .14 −.03 −.20e −.15 −.02 −.04 .22e
Externalizing problemsc
Full sample 87 −.17 −.21* −.11 −.01 −.05 .10 .02 −.08
No authoritarians 74 −.24* −.30** −.11 .06 −.10 .12 .06 −.14
Internalizing problems
Full sample 87 .05 −.09 .17 .18e .30** .29** .25* .18e
No authoritarians 74 −.08 −.11 .10 .17 .24* .12 .16 .02
Mean coefficientsd
Full sample 87 .12 .20 −.09 −.14 −.20 −.21 −.14 −.08
No authoritarians 74 .23 .24 −.05 −.15 −.17 −.15 −.09 .06
Note. The standardized coefficients are from analyses in which the T3 outcome was regressed on the T1 demandingness variable indicated, controlling for T1
preexisting differences and, where applicable, T1 IQ (for 3 outcomes) and T1 externalizing problems.
a
Instead of excluding authoritarian families, seven cases of severe physical punishment were excluded from the final analyses, which constituted a test of
normative physical punishment with n = 80.
b
These analyses controlled for T1 IQ.
c
T1 externalizing was the only T1 covariate for this outcome.
d
Mean coefficients were calculated after reversing the signs for the problem outcomes, so that positive coefficients always indicated beneficial associations and
negative coefficients always indicated detrimental associations.
181
e
p < .10.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
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 have
been adjusted so that a negative sign indicates an adverse effect.) However, as Table 4
shows, those effect sizes became small and nonsignificant after controlling for preexist-
ing differences on the outcomes (mean b = −.12). After we excluded parents who used
severe 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 analysis
for each outcome to test their effects while controlling for each other as well as the T1
covariates. This provides an integrated, comprehensive summary of the distinctive effects
of 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 adverse
effects of verbal hostility and psychological control in the full sample. In support of this
hypothesis, confrontive discipline predicted significantly higher levels for three of the four
competence outcomes (ps < .05) and marginally lower externalizing problems (p < .10, see
Table 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 as

indicated by their emphasis on promoting conformity and obedience, with authoritarian
parents the most conservative, permissive parents the most liberal, and authoritative
TABLE 5
Effects of Confrontive Discipline, Verbal Hostility, and Psychological Control on Specific Adolescent
Outcomes
Predictor Communal Cognitive Externalizing Internalizing

Variable Competence Competence Individuation Self-Efficacy Problems Problems
Preexisting −.02 −.05 .06 .17a .28* .33**

differences
IQ — .41** .38*** .30** — —
Externalizing −.29* −.01 .02 .01 — .04
problems
Confrontive .06 .24* .27** .26** −.19a −.03
discipline
Verbal hostility −.24* −.12 −.22* −.24* −.08 .23*
Psychological −.10 −.17 −.17 −.28** .17 .21*
control
R2 .20** .24** .30*** .39*** .13* .30***
Note. N = 87. Preexisting differences on outcomes were statistically controlled, as were IQ and earlier
externalizing problems, where applicable. IQ at T1 was included as a covariate for the outcomes it predicted
significantly in preliminary analyses. The table displays standardized regression coefficients with all predic-
tors in the analysis.
a
p < .10.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
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 confrontive
discipline, spanking (normative physical punishment), and household management
could account for the adverse effects of authoritarian parenting. The comprehensive
multiple regressions indicated that adolescents had better outcomes to the extent their
parents 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 to
adolescent outcomes in a normal population. We contrasted the effects of confrontive
versus coercive practices to account in part for the differential long-term effects of
authoritative 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 externalizing
problem 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 differential
effects 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 than
children reared by other parents we introduced the superordinate concepts of balance
and commitment. We theorized that both the balance between what parents required
of children (demandingness) and how supportive they were (responsiveness), and
their level of commitment (assessed as high levels of both responsiveness and forms of
demandingness specified as beneficial) would be significant determinants of parents’
success, as indicated by optimal competence and emotional health in their adolescent
children. 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 permissive
parents were the least balanced, and disengaged parents the least committed, we
expected (and found) their children to be the least competent and least well-adjusted.
Adolescents had better outcomes, including higher agency, if their parents had
used relatively high behavioral control (confrontive discipline) during the preschool
years, provided parents were also at least moderately responsive and autonomy-
supportive and avoided verbal hostility and psychological control (that is, were
authoritative or directive rather than authoritarian). We found no detrimental effects
of spanking and beneficial effects of confrontive discipline, except when confounded
with detrimental forms of power assertion, as it is in authoritarian parenting. The pre-

school parenting patterns lowest on behavioral control (permissive, disengaged) were
both associated with lower competence. Permissive parents are highly responsive, but
fail to use the two most beneficial forms of demandingness, differing from the average
of 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, lenient
practices, and equalitarian values of their parents, adolescents from permissive fami-
lies were almost 1 SD less autonomous (individuation and self-efficacy) than their
peers from these two more confrontive families. As Iyengar and Lepper (2000) sug-
gested, unconstrained freedom of choice may result in a sense of indeterminacy and
groundlessness, rather than empowerment and self-sufficiency. However, because a

temperamentally timid child could be intimidated by the high emotional expressivity
that accompanies spirited confrontation (Goldstein & Rodnick, 1975), the level and
kind of power used by parents should be titrated to match the vulnerability of their
child (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 authoritative
parenting: Although diametrically opposed on social ideology reflected in their
demanding and responsive parenting practices, authoritarian and permissive parents
both 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 authoritarian
parents 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 authoritarian
parents rely on coercive forms of power assertion to maintain family hierarchy in
which children are subordinate, whereas permissive parents in their reluctance to
assert 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 emotional
health were evident even after accounting for the effects of T3 supergroups, which
acted as a partial mediator of the preschool parenting effects. We suggest that the
strength of T1 parenting effects relative to T2 parenting effects may be the result of
greater similarity and intensity in the challenges parents of preschool students face
with regard to issues of autonomy and self-determination. During their preschool
years, when T1 assessments took place, toddlers develop a sense of an independent self
and are motivated to protect their perceived behavioral freedom by resisting parental
authority. Toddler negativities have parallels in adolescence in that adolescents typi-
cally strive to broaden an arena of personal freedom and sense of efficacy by directly
contesting or indirectly subverting parental authority (Smetana, 2005). How parents
negotiate power shifts during the two challenging developmental periods of preschool
and adolescence may have especially significant long-term effects, compared with the
relatively harmonious latency period when T2 assessments took place. Perhaps optimal
development during latency depends more on factors such as proactive teaching and
parent–child bonding. How parents assert power may be less important when children
are 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 integrated
practices that interact in such a way as to confer properties that are not possessed by a
sum 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 confrontive
discipline, can have very different effects, depending on the level of other component
practices, 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 with
the detrimental effects of coercive forms of power assertion, in particular verbal hostil-
ity and psychological control, held constant, T1 confrontive discipline (our measure of
behavioral control) had moderately beneficial effects on 3 of 4 adolescent competency
outcomes (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 manifested
low communal competence, internalizing problems, and low self-esteem, whereas
children of authoritative and directive parents who used, but did not abuse, power
were prosocial and well-adjusted. In contrast with authoritarian parents, authoritative
parents, although equally confrontive, have a nuanced conception of compliance and
noncompliance, 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 to
use “minimally sufficient” power to achieve their objectives. In contrast, authoritarian
parents 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” coercive
constraints discourage their children’s autonomous attempts to initiate self-directed
behavior.
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 forceful
rather than gentle or covert, confrontive discipline correlated positively with children’s
autonomous 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 and
just. When confrontive parents are not coercive, that is are authoritative rather than
authoritarian, their children tend to emulate, rather than to be intimidated by, their
parents’ assertiveness.
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 except
for externalizing problems (see Table 1). Directive parents were like authoritarian par-
ents in being highly confrontive and ideologically conservative (see Table 3), but unlike
authoritarian parents were moderately responsive and avoided severe levels of verbal
and 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 and
sense of autonomy. We categorize such parents as authoritarian rather than as directive.
The training practices of Chinese American parents (Chao, 1994), the emphasis on
prompt compliance by African American parents (Mandara, 2006; McLoyd, 1990), on

respect 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 view
that 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 a
more 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 promote
forms of competence consistent with a family’s particular circumstances and cultural
ideology 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 or
psychological, 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) assert
that all punishment is more likely to alienate children and enhance the value of what is
being 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 side
effects of punishment depended on how it was used, not on whether it was physical or
verbal. Like any kind of punishment, spanking is intended to be aversive and is
unpleasant to inflict as well as to receive, and like punishment of any kind, should be
used only when its estimated benefits outweigh these costs. Singling out spanking for
censure obscures the fact that all punishment causes pain and so must be justified by
the 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 has
been 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 have
been challenged (Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005) on
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 those
of other disciplinary enforcers, and to distinguish between the effects of spanking and
severe physical punishment.
We found detrimental effects of severe physical punishment, but no significant
effects, 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 who
used the least physical punishment, and authoritarian parents who used the most
(Table 3). Supporting the differentiation we made between effects of normative and
severe physical punishment, a genetically informed study concluded that, in contrast
with severe physical punishment, the apparent detrimental outcomes associated with
normative physical punishment are due not to spanking but instead to shared genetic
influences (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 and
verbal hostility to be more strongly associated than total physical punishment with
adverse adolescent attributes. Perhaps this was because manipulative rebukes and
wounding words more clearly conveyed rejection in our sample. Rohner and col-
leagues (Rohner, Bourque, & Elordi, 1996; Rohner, Kean, & Cournoyer, 1991) reported
that in two communities where moderately severe physical punishment is culturally
normative through adolescence, youths’ perceived harshness of physical punishment
was associated with self-reported psychological maladjustment only when construed
by 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 almost
half 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 higher
level of moderate distress in preschool students than did nonphysical punishment, and
did so for a shorter period of time (Ms of 4.2 min vs. 5.2 min). The relatively low level of
distress 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 favored
physical 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 causal
relevance of our results in accord with six epidemiological causality criteria included in
the list proposed by Hill (1965) and cited by experts such as Shadish, Cook, and
Campbell (2002): (1) temporality, (2) strength of association, (3) control of confounds
threatening 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 who

has misbehaved, time-ordered data are essential to infer cause from correlational
studies of the relation between parents’ power-assertive practices and children’s
attributes. Our results are time-ordered, with parenting being measured 10 years
before assessment of adolescents’ competence and adjustment.
Strength of association. The average of the three balanced-committed parenting patterns

produced adolescent outcomes that were a full standard deviation (d = 1.05) better than
those 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 supergroup
effect sizes approached or exceeded Cohen’s (1988) large effect size of d = 0.80, increasing
confidence that early parenting has important predictable long-term effects.
Control of confounds threatening internal validity. Internal validity implies validity of

causal inference for the sample studied, which requires control of selection bias and
distortions introduced by confounds. All of our analyses of parenting effects on adoles-
cent outcomes controlled statistically for preexisting differences on the outcomes. By
controlling for preschool precursors, the net effects analyses provided stronger causal
evidence. In addition, the analyses of power-assertive variables controlled for earlier
externalizing problems, because they represent the kinds of dysfunctional behavior
that 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 research
cannot be causally conclusive because statistical adjustments in net effects analyses
depend upon many unverified assumptions, and may reduce but cannot eliminate the
bias associated with likely confounds (Campbell & Boruch, 1975; McKim & Turner,
1997; Rothman & Greenland, 1998). Furthermore, without control for potential genetic
influences other than IQ, we could not rule out common genetically based factors
rather than parental influences as accounting for our parent–child associations.
Control of confounds threatening external validity. For many study objectives, including
ours, an ecologically valid observational study that uses high-quality independent data
sources to predict outcomes from past happenings is the most feasible scientific option
for providing causally relevant evidence applicable to real world events. The inten-
tional homogeneity of the FSP sample minimizes factors other than parenting that
could otherwise account for differences in child outcomes but also limits generalization
of 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 of
measurement error, which is necessary for producing reliable and valid data, is critical
for establishing the causal relevance of any scientific findings. We were able to minimize
many of the method and rater biases that have introduced error in previous studies of
the effects of power-assertive practices. FSP archives provided multimethod data, distinct
data sources on parents and children, and different items reflecting a wide variety of
power-assertive practices that are often treated as similar. Naturally-occurring events in
the home and school were broadly sampled and structured observations were specifically
designed to elicit diverse kinds of power-assertive parental interventions. Trained observ-
ers based their ratings of parents’ power-assertive practices on complete transcripts of
home visits, structured observations and standardized intensive interviews. Thus, FSP
data sources used in this study provided exceptionally comprehensive, valid, and reliable
assessments of children’s characteristics and parents’ handling of disciplinary encounters.
Empirical and theoretical coherence. Our findings concerning the effects of parenting
patterns, and specifically the benefits of the balanced-committed authoritative pattern

relative to the imbalanced permissive or authoritarian patterns on the development of
children 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 and
lenient childrearing patterns offer both conservative (authoritarian and directive) and
liberal (permissive and democratic) parents ideologically compatible styles of parental
authority that can generate optimal outcomes (directive and democratic). On the basis
of intensive observational data, our findings concerning the long-term differential
effects of coercive and confrontive kinds of power-assertive disciplinary practices sup-
port the findings of Barber (2002a, 2002b), Hoffman (1975), and Patterson (1997) that
behavioral control is associated positively with children’s cognitive competence and
sense 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 significantly
advanced by greater use of naturalistic observation of children interacting with familiar
adults over prolonged periods of time in real-life settings (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder,
2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Observational studies conducted in real-life settings are likely
to continue to depend largely on correlational rather than experimental data. Net effects
analytic methods improve the validity of causally relevant conclusions from correlational
data to some extent, but are not causally conclusive (McKim & Turner, 1997). Unbiased
causal inferences from net-effects analyses require comprehensive and perfectly reliable
measures of all relevant confounds. The quality and comprehensiveness of measures of
possible confounds are crucial for approximating this ideal. Statistical adjustments based
on propensity scores can combine many covariates efficiently and yield important
diagnostics (Haviland, Nagin, Rosenbaum, & Tremblay, 2008). Alternative analyses, such
as analyses of simple gain scores and temporally reversed analyses, can differentiate
causal 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 socialization
research using correlational analyses to address issues of causation through hypothesis
disconfirmation (Popper, 1974). The distinction we make between coercive and confron-
tive power assertive disciplinary practices is important to pursue in contemporary cultural
contexts, with longitudinal observational studies, to explain how authoritarian parenting

practices 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-term
benefits in this study. Careful study of the long-term consequences of a legal ban on
spanking in the 26 countries that have done so (Center for Effective Discipline, 2010) by a
collaborative team with a range of perspectives could determine whether an unintended
consequence 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, whereas
authoritarian and permissive parenting devoid of either responsiveness or enforceable
limits, 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 a
European 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 (highly
demanding and engaged but not promotive of autonomy) on children and adolescents
in diverse (e.g., Asian, Puerto Rican, and African American) cultural contexts. Further
research identifying instances of the democratic style of leadership in cultural contexts
other than European American middle-class families of the kind we sampled are
needed 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; Steinberg
et al., 1992), Steinberg (2001) concluded that “the benefits of authoritative parenting
transcend the boundaries of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and household composi-
tion” (p. 12). However, as Mandara (2006) noted, Baumrind’s typology was conceived
specifically 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 family
typology, 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 would
support a universal typology, and possibly universally effective and ineffective ways of
rearing 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 to
demandingness 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
Oklahoma State University (E-mail: robert.larzelere@okstate.edu), and Elizabeth B.

Owens is at the University of California, Berkeley.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the consistent and generous support of the
William T. Grant Foundation for the Family Socialization and Developmental Compe-
tence longitudinal program of research that provided the archival data on which these
analyses are based. The National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of
Drug Abuse, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation also contributed
support to that research. The authors thank the excellent staff of psychologists who
contributed to the collection and coding of the data, and in particular to Nadia
Sorkhabi who took a leadership role in their training and together with Ellen
Middaugh in writing the manual containing the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scales. The
authors also thank Gail Smith and Ketevan Danelia for their statistical analyses. Above
all, they thank the parents who shared their experiences and ideas about parenting and
the 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 Behavior
Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a
child’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 behavioral
control 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 behavioral
control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 70, 1–137.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: 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’s
aggressiveness in elementary school. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives
(pp. 124–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger
movements: 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
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 in
moral development and education (pp. 21–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in
preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291–327.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment
on 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. Depression
and 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 tend
to underestimate effects. In C. A. Bennett & A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experiment: Some critical
issues 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. Retrieved
June 4, 2010, from http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=laws-main
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese
parenting 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 and
school 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: Cambridge
University 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. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child
psychology 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 to
child 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. Psychological
Bulletin, 110, 3–25.
Dix, T. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathic goals in the regulation of responsive parenting. In
I. E. Siegel, A. V. McGillicuddy-Delisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief systems: The psychological
consequences 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 being
controlled: 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 longitudinal
investigation 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.
Graziano, A. M. (1994). Why we should study subabusive violence against children. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 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-determination
theory 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 parental
spanking 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 of
the 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 of
Medicine, 58, 295–300.
Hirshfeld, D. R., Biderman, J., Brody, L., Faraone, S. V., & Rosenbaum, J. (1997). Associations between
expressed emotion and child behavioral inhibitions and psychopathology: A pilot study. Journal of the
American 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 processing
approach. 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.), Handbook
of 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 abuse
in 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 corporal
punishment 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 verbal
abuse 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: Multiple
pathways 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. Child
Development, 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. Child
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 comparison
of China, India, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, and Thailand. Child Development, 76, 1234–1246.
Larzelere, R. E. (2001). Combining love and limits in authoritative parenting: A conditional sequence model
of 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 longitudinal
analyses 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 alternative
disciplinary 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-recognized
confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289–303.
Larzelere, R. E., & Merenda, J. A. (1994). The effectiveness of parental discipline for toddler misbehavior at
different 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 enhances
reasoning’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 in
delaying 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: Developmental
perspectives (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. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 683–697.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In
E. 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 developmental
research. 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: A
review 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.
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 and
Family, 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 Comparative
Social Science, 36, 15–47.
Rohner, R. P., Kean, K. J., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1991). Effects of corporal punishment, perceived caretaker
warmth, and cultural beliefs on the psychological adjustment of children in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journal
of 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
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 school
marks. 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 University
Press.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19.
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 academic
success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on
adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed.
Stevens, G., & Cho, J. H. (1985). Socioeconomic indexes and the new 1980 Census Occupational Classification
scheme. Social Science Research, 14, 142–169.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of
Marriage 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 behavior
and 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 and
Family 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. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 95–111.
Vostanis, P., Nicholls, J., & Harrington, R. (1994). Maternal expressed emotion in conduct and emotional
disorders 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.
APPENDIX A
T3-Specific Adolescent Outcomes With Up to Eight Representative Items
(1) Cognitive competence (12 items, a = .96)

Item Item-total correlation
Seeks intellectual challenge .90
Perseveres intellectually .88
Challenges self intellectually .88
Actively strives for excellence .86
Interested in school success .85
Exerts intellectual effort .84
Does well in school .82
Intrinsically motivated intellectually .82
(2) Communal competence (29 items, a = .97)

Facilitative .85
Dependable, trustworthy .84
Considerate of others .83
Accepts responsibility for consequences .83
Self-contained .80
Benevolent .79
Amiable .75
Can delay gratification .75
(3) Individuated (14 items, a = .94)

Interesting, arresting personality .90
Possesses sense of identity .86
Interesting conversationalist .82
Expresses self articulately .81
Communicates clearly .78
Has personal standards .77
Consciously examines life .76
Mature .70
(4) Self-efficacy (5 items, a=.87)

Lacks self respect (–) .89
Lacks confidence with parents (–) .75
Lacks confidence with adults (–) .71
Lacks cognitive confidence (–) .65
Lacks confidence with peers (–) .50
(5) Externalizing problem behavior (8 items, a =.90)

Engages in dangerous exploits .82
Delinquent behavior .81
Dropout mentality or lifestyle .80
Antisocial peer group .76
Hostile to adults outside the home .58
Doesn’t feel guilty after misbehaving .58
Sexually active, promiscuous .57
Unusually independent .54
(Continued)
APPENDIX A
(Continued)
(6) Internalizing problem behavior (12 items, a = .89)

Self-pitying .77
Excessive worrying, insecure .77
Suffers mental anguish .71
Feels worthless .69
Pessimistic world view .66
Emotionally labile (moody) .61
Unhappy in school .59
Socially deviant .54
APPENDIX B
T1 Parent Variables With Up to Eight Representative Items
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)
Confronts when child disobeys .79
Cannot be coerced by child .77
Successfully exerts force or influence .75
Enforces after initial noncompliance .72
Exercises power unambivalently .72
Uses negative sanctions freely .71
Discourages defiant stance .69
Demands child’s attention .67
(2) Household management

Requires household help (5 items, a = .85)
Demands child put toys away .77
Discourages obstructive behavior .70
Demands child clean own messes .69
Sets regular tasks .61
Encourages self-help .48
Maintains structure and regimen (4 items, a = .71)
Regimen set for child .59
Fixed bedtime hour .50
Restricts TV viewing .49
Requires well-balanced diet .48
(3) Responsive (7 items, a = .87)

Disciplines supportively .79
Encourages intimate verbal contact .73
Remains open when child disagrees .69
Responsive to child’s bids for closeness .63
Approachable and available to child .59
Warm .59
Listens to child’s critical comments .56
(Continued)
APPENDIX B
(Continued)
(4) Unqualified power assertion (6 items, a = .78)

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

Intrusive (7 items, a = .89)
Intrusive .82
Overcontrolling .75
Manipulative .74
Undermines child’s achievements .68
Obtuse .66
Abusive, hostile .65
Overprotective .59
Encourages Independence and Individuation (8 items, a = .89;
reverse scored for psychological control)
Encourages self-directedness .80
Encourages individuality in child .76
Solicits child’s opinions .67
Individualistic .65
Shares decision-making power with child .65
Encourages independent action .65
Discourages conformity .62
Defines child’s individuality accurately .60
Section II: Items obtained from the Parent Attitude Inquiry
(6) Promotes conformity and obedience (18 items, a = .87)

A child should honor its mother and father and accept their authority. .69
I expect my child be polite at school and not argue with a teacher. .61
I do not want my child to be a nonconformist. .60
Children should not talk back to adults. .59
Children would get in less trouble if parents taught respect for authority. .58
Children must learn to accommodate to group demands. .54
Children today are rewarded too much for nonconformity. .52
A 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)
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 severe
physical 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 by
a 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) parent
lifts the child and throws or shakes the child. Severe physical punishment was coded as yes (n = 7) when the
physical punishment scale (number 9) and averaged intensity scores were both >1 SD above the sample
mean. Analyses involving the physical punishment variable measured spanking (i.e., normative physical
punishment) when these seven families were removed.

Assertive Patterns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assertive Patterns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]

On: 16 January 2011

Effects of Preschool Parents' Power Assertive Patterns and Practices on

Online publication date: 03 August 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

Effects of Preschool Parents’ Power Assertive

Patterns and Practices on Adolescent

In all societies a prime responsibility of parents is to socialize their children to conform

Exercise of Parental Authority

Authoritarian-Distinctive Power Assertion

Arbitrary discipline. Hoffman (1983) differentiated between arbitrary and rational

child’s developmental needs. Arbitrary discipline is characterized by unpredictability,

aggression in 2- and 3-year-old children.

Psychological control. Psychological control, unlike behavioral control, is the antithe-

Hostile verbal criticism. The developmental psychopathology literature (e.g., Hirshfeld,

Patterns of Parental Authority

Parenting dimensions: Responsiveness and demandingness. Responsiveness refers to emo-

Minimizing Sources of Invalidity

Inadequate data. Although observational and interview data are acknowledged to

The Present Study

responsiveness and low coerciveness of permissive families may be beneficial and

different variants of power assertion. (Household management is a demandingness

T1 and T3 Measures and Variables

Project-designed child measures. Observers completed the 72-item Preschool Behavior

Project-designed parent measures. Ratings of parental behavior were made by the

Derivation of Child Variables

Preexisting differences among children. Variables analogous to the eight T3 adolescent

Derivation of T1 Parent Variables

Adolescent Outcomes of Preschool Parenting Patterns

General Cognitive Communal Total Externalizing Internalizing

General Cognitive Communal Total Externalizing Internalizing

Permissive 9 46.7−2 46.2−2 46.8−1 44.1−3 50.21 50.01 52.6 51.00

beneficial effects on autonomy outcomes (individuation and self-efficacy) only when

parenting patterns, whereas authoritarian parenting compared unfavorably with all

Unique Effects of Preschool Parenting Patterns

General Competence Total Problems

Predictor Variable b ΔR2 b ΔR2

Detrimental Power Assertion Versus Beneficial Power Assertion

with beneficial (authoritative and directive) versus adverse (authoritarian) outcomes.

confrontive power assertion to be beneficial when not confounded with authoritarian-

Power-assertive variables distinctive of authoritarian parents. The first set of analyses

Unqualified Total Severe Physical

specific adolescent outcomes from the five authoritarian-distinctive power-assertive vari-

Authoritarian-Distinctive Power Assertion

Normative physical punishment (spanking) never predicted adverse (or beneficial)

Social ideology. The parenting patterns differed as expected on social ideology as

Predictor Communal Cognitive Externalizing Internalizing

Preexisting −.02 −.05 .06 .17a .28* .33**

Narrative Summary of Results

with detrimental forms of power assertion, as it is in authoritarian parenting. The pre-

groundlessness, rather than empowerment and self-sufficiency. However, because a

Unique Effects of Preschool Parenting Patterns

Accounting for the Differential Effects of Authoritarian and Authoritative Parenting

Effects of Directive Parenting

prompt compliance by African American parents (Mandara, 2006; McLoyd, 1990), on

methodological grounds that include reliance on correlational evidence and retrospec-

Causal Relevance of Results: Strengths and Limitations

Temporality. Because power-assertive responses are a likely reaction to a child who

Strength of association. The average of the three balanced-committed parenting patterns

Control of confounds threatening internal validity. Internal validity implies validity of

patterns, and specifically the benefits of the balanced-committed authoritative pattern

Future Directions for Socialization Research