A Study To Define Parenting And Parenting Styles

The phenomenon of parenting is common to all cultures of world. Different aspects of parenting are considered universally important. For example, parents must nurture and should provide facilities regarding the healthy physical development as well as the basic survival needs of their children (Bornstein, 1995).

Furthermore, certain aspects of parental behavior like warmth and acceptance have been found to be linked with, and predictive of, childs normal psychological and behavioral adjustment across various cultures (Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005)

Parenting as by definition is considered to be an important element of several aspects of children’s outcome (Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, & Onghena, 2004). However, there are greater number of variations than commonalities in the expression and explanation of parenting behaviors across cultures. Such differences in parenting are mainly influenced by many factors including parental personality characteristics, child characteristics, and contextual or the environmental sources (Belsky, 1984).

Parenting Styles

Baumrind’s (1971) has given the classification system that categorizes parenting styles according to two dimensions based on the parental influence.

1. The level of parental expectation from the child.

2. The level of parental responsiveness to the child.

These two dimensions of parenting, are frequently used in literature.and are termed as warmth, also called responsiveness or support, family cohesion versus conflict, distance or rejection; demandingness, also referred to as control versus permissiveness (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Steinberg, 1990). Combinations of these two dimen-sions form the parenting styles that have been identified (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Parents with high expectations particularly and high responsiveness to their children are defined as authoritative parents(Pratt ,1999).While parents with high expectations but with no responsiveness are defined as authoritarian parents, third category include the parents who have low expectation level from their children and are not responsive are classified to be permissive parents .Last category include parents who are low in both dimensions(expectations and responsiveness) are considered neglectful or uninvolved (Pratt ,1999). This final category is generally considered to be an absence of parenting rather than an implemented “parenting style” and was not considered in the present study on parenting styles.

Contemporary research on parenting styles derives from Baumrind’s (1978) well-known studies of children and their families. Baumrind’s basic concepts of parenting style are based on an approach that is related to the study the socialization practices related to family life . (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).This approach focuses on combining different parenting practices and assumes that the effect of any single practice depends on the organization of all other domains. (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Variations in the application of main parenting styles produce variations in child responsiveness. (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Hence from this perspective, parenting style is considered as that characteristic that changes the level of effectiveness of family socialization practices and in turn the child’s understanding regarding such practices (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Baumrind’s (1971) parenting style typology identified three different types of parenting styles.

Dimensions of Parenting.

Authoritative Parenting

Authoritative parents exercise both high level of demandingness as well as responsiveness. (Baumrind 1971;1989). They control their child’s behavior according to their age appropriate manner and create an affectionate and loving environment where the child could express his or her opinion and participate in decision making processes within family.(Baumrind 1971;1989).

Authoritative parents maintain an equilibrium between the levels of demandingness as well as responsiveness. These parents make and firmly enforce rules and standards for their children’s behavior. (Baumrind, 1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). They consistently monitor conduct and use non punitive methods of discipline when rules are violated. And in return they expect socially responsible and mature behavior by children and when such behaviors are met they reinforce them. (Baumrind, 1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987).

Steiburgh, Lamborn, DornBusch & Darling study examines the effect of authoritative parenting, parental involvement in schooling, and parental praise to do well in terms of school achievement.The sample was based on ethnicity as well as the social class and was heterogeneous.It approximately consisted of 6,400 American 14-18-year-olds. Results indicated that Authoritative parenting leads to better academic performance as well as stronger school participation in adolescents. And this positive impact of authoritative parenting on adolescent achievement, certainly mediated by the positive impact of authoritativeness on parental overindulgence in child schooling.

Thus authoritative parenting style is recognized as the best and most suitable style for developing competent and confident children in all domains of life (Berk, 2002, Bems, 2004).

Authoritarian Parenting

Authoritarian parents are characterized by higher level of demandingness as well as lower level of responsiveness. (Baumrid,1971;1989). They have strick control over the children ,expecting conformity and obedience and allow little space for child independence as well as autonomy.(Baumrid,1971;1989). These parents attempt to control the behavior and attitudes and emotions of their children according to a set of standards which they have made. (Baumrind, 1991).They tend to emphasize obedience, respect for authority, and order. They also discourage verbal discussions with their children, expecting their rules to be followed without further justification (Baumrind, 1991).

Researches on authoritarian parenting found that high parental control was associated with heightened selfconsciousness among young teenagrs. Increased self-awareness and in turn, predicted lower ability in math, social, and sports and games domains (Yee & Flanagan, 1985).

Brand, Hatzinger ,Beck &Trachsler(1995) study found that authoritarian parenting style was highly correlated with low sleep quality, negative mood, increased daytime sleepiness, and with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Barnes and Farrell(1981) found that parents who used forceful control over their children such as yelling, screaming, shouting, slapping, and hitting had adolescents who were more likely to exhibit destructive behavior at school.

Permissive Parenting

Permissive parents exert low demandingness levels towards their children.They exercise minimal control and authority as well as failed to define limits of acceptable behavior of the child.(Baumrind1971;1989).

The main idea of permissive parenting is to allow the child extensive autonomyand independence, supported by high parental support, in the hopes of establishing close relationships with their children (Peterson & Hann, 1999).

Children who have been raised by such parents are found to be at risk for delinquent and destructive behaviors, poor educational competence as well as low levels of psychological functioning.(Baumrind1971;1989).Permissive parenting style often inculcate more serious problems in adolescence such as drug use (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), and school misconduct with other fellows and teachers (McCord, 1988).

However, on the other hand positive outcomes of permissive parenting include close parent-child relationships, greater self-esteem, and more independence (Herz & Gullone, 1999).

Neglectful Parenting

The neglectful parents are the ones who are both low on responsiveness level as well as on demandingness (Maccoby and Martin,1997). Researches have shown that children and adolescents having neglectful parents show the poorest level of adjustment among the four types of parenting styles. Furthermore, these adolescents are the most deprived in terms of social competence, academic achievement, and psychological wellbeing. (Baumrind,&Lamborn,1991). Moreover, the harmful effects of neglectful parenting accumulate and increase over time (Steinberg , 1994).

Rai.(2008) study examined the role of Perceived Parental Rearing Style on drug addiction amongst Mizo male and female adolescents. The results indicated that neglectful parenting styles of father and mother leads to drug addiction among Mizo adolescents.

Parenting Styles and Children/Adolescents

Kramer & Cook (1997) reported that parental rearing style has its significant effect on the personality traits and risk behaviour of developing child. Parenting styles are likely to influence parents’ success in transmitting the values they want to their children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

Smetana& Judith(2005) study found that most of the adolescents perceived their parents as being more permissive and authoritarian in comparison with parents perception of their parenting practices, However parents viewed themselves as more authoritative than the adolescents. Parents’ parenting styles distinguished their conceptions of parental authority, but contrary to this adolescents’ perceptions did not.

Although the parenting style typology was originally developed for research on family socialization practices during childhood, it also has been used to study the links between family interaction patterns and areas of adolescent functioning. (Chao, 1994; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Dornbusch ,1987).

Despite years of research on parenting styles, there are surprisingly few studies of the mechanisms that intervene between parenting and adolescents’ achievement outcomes. Attempts to explain the influence of parenting style have generally focused on specific parental behaviors and on internal characteristics of youth. (Glasscow,1991).

Heaven,&Ciarocchi(2008)conducted a study to assess the long-term effects of adolescents’ recollections of parental styles on the development of their optimistic thinking, by finding their levels of self-esteem and trait hope. Participants include in the study were 884 high school students. Results indicated that Perceived parental authoritativeness was related to high hope, where as perceived parental authoritarianism was related to low self-esteem among adolescents.

Wagner, Cohen, and Brook (1996) emphasized that adolescents with perceived warm parenting style were less likely to suffer from symptoms of depression after stressful life events than adolescents who reported more rejecting and reproaching parenting styles.

Kaisa, Hakan and Jarierik (2000) study found that adolescents from authoritative families practiced adaptive achievement strategies which were characterized by low levels of expectations related to failure, task-irrelevant behaviour, passive behavior as well as self-enhancing attributions. Contrary to this adolescents from neglectful families used negative strategies which were characterized by high levels of task-irrelevant behaviours, passive behaviors and lack of self-fulfilling attributions. Findings revealed that parenting styles influenced adolescents’ academic achievement.

Parenting Styles and Culture

Several studies also indicated that parenting styles differ according to cultures. Kim(2008) study indicated that cultural setup moderated the relationship between parental dimensions of warmth and control. As, fathers with high association with Asian cultural values related the expressions of behavioral control with those of warmth.Fathers with low acceptance level to cultural values of Asia, however, linked their expressions of behavioral control with both warmth and hostile behaviors. Thus the differences in reports of parenting styles as well as differences in overall domains of cultural values showed highly difficult levels which were based on different forms as well as different functions of parenting styles among Koreans.

Franco(1998) study examines cultural differences in parenting practices between Mexican American and Caucasian college students. In this study Mexican American and Caucasian college students were asked about their perceived parenting styles. Initially it was assumed that Mexican American parenting discipline practices would involve a higher level of punishment as opposed to Caucasian parenting disciplinary practices. Secondly it was also assumed that most of the Mexican- American parents would fall under the Authoritarian parenting style. The results indicated the existence of a correlation between culture and parenting practices. Where as the study did not find significant differences of parenting attitudes between Caucasian and Mexican Americans college students.

Differences between mothers and fathers in Parenting adolescents

Researches have indicated that limited information exists about fathers’ parenting styles and possible gender differences in parenting style, there is some possibility and evidence that mothers tend to demonstrate parenting practices that are related with an authoritative style, while fathers exhibit practices more consistent with an authoritarian style, particularly with regard to the usage of disciplinary strategies regarding adolescents (Tein, Roosa, & Michaels, 1994).

Kim(2008) studied and examined the differences among Korean mothers’, fathers’, as well as adolescent girls’ and boys’ reports of perceived parenting styles with the possible differences from early and mid-adolescence. Results revealed that, most of the mothers were more warm, aggressive, controlling, as compared with fathers. Furthermore most of the boys reported more parental control and in comparison with girls. Further analysis showed that younger adolescents and also their parents reported the use of more controlled parenting styles than older adolescents as well as their parents.

Simons & Conger(2005) study focused on the differences between mothers and fathers regarding four parenting styles. The study examined the way individual parenting styles combined to produce family parenting styles and the extent to which these different styles are linked with negativity like delinquency, depression, and school commitment for adolescents. Results indicated that the most common parenting styles are the ones in which both parents depicted or used the same style of parenting. Having both authoritative parents was associated with the positive outcomes among adolescents. Furthermore authoritative parenting style protects a child from the harmful consequences..

Conrade &Robert (2006) examined significant gender-based differences for the authoritative and permissive styles of parenting. Mothers, rather than fathers, were perceived to be more likely to use these patterens of parenting styles. When considering the level to which parents differentiated between their sons and daughters, optimal differences were found for all the three parenting styles. Fathers as perceived by male respondents were more likely to use an authoritarian and permissive style. Mothers were perceived to be more likely to use an authoritative style by female respondents .

SHYNESS

Shyness is a long lasting social phenomenon(Crozier,2002).Shyness could be understood and defined in a number of ways, mostly in terms of different categories. One such category views shyness as a subjective and private experience which is exhibited as anxiety and apprehension in interpersonal situations. (Buss, 1980).

Buss (1980), defined shyness as an inhibition of expected social behaviour, together with feelings of tension apprehension and awkwardness. Several researchers who have been investigating shyness have attempted to develop objective definitions of such human experience. Another definition sates that shyness is the state of discomfort, behavioral inhibition, and feeling of awkwardness regarding social situations, particularly the situations where there is possible interactions with unknownr people (Buss, 1985) or as a tendency in individual to avoid situations involving social interaction and failure to behave correctly in different social situations (DurmuÅŸ, 2007).

.Carducci(2000) further described shyness as an interpersonal dielema that effects individuals who display certain characteristics like self consciousness as well as feelings of rejection and low self esteem.

Researchers have defined shyness for some individuals that shyness may be characterized by conformity to others’ ideas, described as ”going along in order to get along” (Cheek & Krasnoperova, 1999; Leary & Kowalski, 1995; Lewinsky, 1941).

One of the most comprehensive definition indicate shyness as a form of excessive self-focus, or continuous preoccupation with one’s own thoughts, feelings and behavioral reactions. (Henderson & Zimbardo, 1998). Shyness may vary from mild social anxiety to totally inhibiting social phobia. It may be chronic and devastating, personality trait that is important part of one’s self-concept. (Henderson & Zimbardo, 1998).

The possible reactions for shyness can occur at four levels: affective ,cognitive, physiological and behavioral components..(Henderson & Zimbardo, 1998).

1. Somatic Component

The somatic component involves having physiological and affective-emotional symptoms such as blushing, trembling, feeling upset, and so forth (Cheek & Krasnoperova, 1999; Cheek & Watson, 1989).

2. Behavioral Component

The behavioral component includes quietness, awkward conversations, nonverbal behavior such as gaze aversion, withdrawing from social contacts, and avoiding social interactions (Cheek & Krasnoperova, 1999; Cheek & Watson, 1989).

3. Cognitive Component

The cognitive component involves thoughts and worries, such as fearing rejection or being self-conscious (Cheek & Krasnoperova, 1999; Cheek & Watson, 1989).

Like many other types of emotions, shyness is acquired in social relationships, and experienced mostly when a person is in connection with other people.(Asendorpf, 1990) .

Irvirig &Irving(1995) study examined relationship between shyness and anxiety among high school children .In this study, a personality scale was used to measure shyness and an anxiety scale was administered to children from grades 1 to 5 New Brunswick elementary school. Results indicated a significant correlation between shyness and anxiety for the overall sample. When these data were analyzed according to the grade level of children, large and significant correlations between shyness and anxiety were found primarily for children standing at the upper level of grades.

Different approaches to Shyness

Genetics and Shyness

There exist evidence that infants are genetically predisposed to shyness(Spanish & Angleiter,1998).The inhibited or shy child is usually born during a period in the year when body produces melatonin, which is actually neutrally active hormone that may be transmitted to fetus(Henderson & Zimbardo,1998).

The active hormone is than passed from placenta to the brain od the new fetus ,where reaction take place with the cells which produce the anxious disposition which is displayed by shy children(Carducci &Zimbardo,1995).

There are several other causes like blue eyes, fair skin, blond hairs as well as allergic reactions, which are common in hay fever, which has been identified commonly in the relatives as well as the shy individual’s.(Henderson &Zimbardo,1998).

Trait Shyness By Crozier

Crozier(2002) has given the trait concept of shyness as a particular form of social anxiety,which may include stage fright, embarrassment and social phobia.Shy indiviuals would rather keep quiet than facing the possibility of rejection by others.(Jackson,Towson &Nardussi,1997).

Gender and shyness

Carducci & Zimbardo(1995) identified that gender play an important role regarding shyness .Girls are more likely to be shy from childhood to adolescence ,due to more parental protection as compared to boys. Whereas shyness is more distressing to boys due to gender role stereotypes that boys have to be more social.(Crozier,2001).

Gokhan (2010) study found the relationship of shyness and loneliness levels of elementary students. The sample with in the research constituted of 470 elementary students. Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale and Loneliness Scale were used in the study in order to collect data from the students Results indicated that the shyness levels of male students were found to be higher than the female students.

However, there is also strong evidence which suggests that shyness is more of a risk factor for boys in comparison with girls. (Yarrow, Richters, &Wilson, 1988).As shyness particularly in girls is more likely to be rewarded and accepted by parents, which may in turn result in more positive interactions, on the other hand shyness in boys is more likely to be discouraged by the parents which ultimately leads to more negative interactions (Yarrow, Richters, &Wilson, 1988). These maladaptive outcomes, include behavior problems, loneliness, and peer exclusion (Morison & Masten, 1991).

Stevenson Hinde & Glovers(1996) study found that the mothers of the shy boys responded differently than did the mothers of the shy girls. This suggest that shyness may also be influenced by parents social expectations as regard to gender.It could be said that shyness may be tolerable for girls,as due to gender role expectations which demand them to be passive as well as humble.In case of boys these expectations required them to be dominant and bold.

Spooner,Evans &Santos(2005) assessed shyness in grade 5 and 6 students. They found differences regarding self-ratings of shyness among girls and boys.Girls reported more being shy than boys. These findings suggest the real difference in the subjective feelings of shy individuals.

Types of Shyness

Fearful and self-conscious shyness

Fearful shyness develops in the early years of life and involves an important genetic factor that is sensitivity to emotional reactivity. (Henderson, 2002). This reactivity actually develops negative social conditioning, as well as fear in the presence of others.(Henderson,2002) On the other hand self-conscious shyness is found in the people who actually perceive themselves as social entities who feel discomfort in the situations where their self is being evaluated openly.(Henderson,2002).This type of shyness is linked with the parental negative marks during the childhood.(Henderson,2002).

Schmidt and Robinson(1992) found that individuals who are fearful shy have reported lower self-esteem than the individuals with self-conscious shyness. This is due to the fact that fear of being negatively evaluated is long lasting and is in more severity for fearful shy individuals than self-conscious shy individuals

.Due to this, fearful shy individuals inhibit behaviors related to enhancing their self-efficacy which is important for the development of self-esteem in them. (Schmidt & Robinson,1992).

Situational Shyness

Situational shyness as by definition involves the state of experiencing the symptoms related to shyness in specific social situations but not incorporating it as a component of one’s self-concept. (Henderson & Zimbardo, 1998).

Private self conscious shyness

Private self-consciousness refers to the general ability to focus attention on private, internal experiences, like desires, emotional states, and personal thoughts. (Anderson, Bohon, & Berrigan, 1996).

Apart from anxiety and depression, private self-consciousness has been clearly related to adaptive and personality traits being psychologically healthy as well as cognitive styles. For example it has been viewed that persons who score high on private self-consciousness report themselves to be thoughtful (Turner, 1978). However individuals who report high levels of private self-consciousness tend to be more stable in their reports regarding personality measures, which is considered to reflect intimate knowledge about the self, than individuals reporting lower levels of private self-consciousness (Siegrist, 1996).

Public self conscious shyness

Public self-consciousness is related to feelings of anxiety in social situations (Fenigstein et al., 1975), rejection-sensitivity (Fenigstein, 1979), the personality trait of neuroticism (Scandell, 1998), worrying (Keogh, French, & Reidy, 1998), and reports of paranoid cognition (e.g., feelings of being watched; Fenigstein & Vanable, 1992). Public self-consciousness has also been related to the basic concers regarding self-presentation..

For example, positive associations have been found between public self-consciousness and women’s makeup use and their beliefs about the positive impact of makeup in social situations (Miller & Cox, 1982); In another study positive associations have been reported with women’s concerns regarding clothing as well as fashion (Solomon & Schopler, 1982). Moreover, public self-consciousness has been related to conformity to the opinions of others (Scheier, 1980).

Individuals scoring high on public self-consciousness change or alter their opinions as well as their personal beliefs more often than those low on public self-consciousness (Scheier, 1980). Concerns regarding self presentation may influence the public self-conscious person to change his or her opinion so that he/she could be “in-line” with others, or to stop the self from standing out and being perceived as different and unusual than others. (Scheier, 1980) At last, public self-consciousness has been linked to self-as-target bias, or the tendency to associate and evaluate the self as the target in situations in which the identity of the self is unclear. By using the group experimental designs and by inducement of self-as-target bias, Fenigstein (1984) examined that regardless of the usual occurence of an event (positive versus negative, enjoyable versus unenjoyable), all college-age students were more likely to perceive themselves than others as being the target or of an event.More importantly, the self-as-target bias was positively associated with public self-consciousness, but not clearly with private selfconsciousness. These results indicated that as a result of their higher preoccupation with themselves as by considering themselves as social objects, high publicly self-conscious individuals perceive that others are always interested in them (Fenigstein, 1984). However, Fenigstein and colleagues argued that results from the other studies support the notion that within the domain of interpersonal contexts, public self-consciousness increases the likelihood of attributions regarding the self as the focus of attention (Fenigstein, 1984).

Prevalance of Shyness

The percentage of adults in the US reporting high level of shyness ,was reported to be 40% since the early 1970’s. Latest research clearly state that the percentage of self-reported shy behavior has risen abruptly in the last ten years to almost 50% . The National Comorbidity Survey conducted in 1994 revealed that lifetime prevalence of social phobia was 13.3%, making it the world’s third most prevalent psychiatric disorder. Furthermore the comparison of the other studies suggests that the proportion of the population who are actually suffering from chronic, shyness may not be reflected in the numbers of people visiting anxiety disorders clinics. On of the recent estimate in Mysore and surrounding areas of south India was that 26.2% of the total children showed high levels of shyness, who were followed by 36.6% having moderate shyness and other 37.3% of the children showed low levels of shyness (Natesha & D’Souza, 2007).

Shyness and Children/Adolescents

Shy children who get exposed to novel social conditions are often more “difficult” and more easily aroused as compared to non-shy children (Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987). Shy children are cautious and anxious when they meet new people and perceive themselves as being socially evaluated by them (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009).

From transition through childhood to adolescence, extremely shy children are at risk for number of socio-emotional problems (Rubin et al., 2009; Sanson, Smart, & Misson, 2011). For example, shy children report feeling loneliness and display signs of anxiety and other internalizing problems (Coplan , 2008; Coplan, Closson, & Arbeau, 2007). Where as, peers tend to respond to shy behaviors with negative behaviors such as rejection, and victimization.(Chen, & Wang, 2006).

Asendorpf (1993) hypothesized that children temperamentally disposed to inhibited behavior are not the ones who lack social skills in settings with familiar peers if they feel accepted by them; he also hypothesized that the quality of children’s relationships with classmates increasingly predict their social inhibition.

Positive Aspects of Shyness

Researchers have argued that shyness could also have some positive features,(Carducci, 1999). However, situational shyness might serve as means to keep us vigilent, and to make us think twice before acting in social interactions (Carducci, 1999). This, in turn, might prevent us from upsetting ourselves or hurting the feelings of other people(Carducci, 1999).

In addition, some theorists view shyness as a desirable trait (Carducci, 1999; Zimbardo, 1977). They argued that most of the features of shyness could be viewed as valuable (Gough & Thorne, 1986; Leary & Buckley, 2000; Schmidt & Tasker, 2000; Zimbardo, 1977). Shy people are often perceived as modest, self-controlled, and cautious (Leary, Bednarski, Hammon, & Duncan, 1997). Such people are perceived to be non-impulsive. (Schmidt & Tasker, 2000). If shy individuals’ self-descriptions of shyness are more inclined towards patience, self-control, or balance, then others view their shyness in a positive way. (Gough & Thorne, 1986).

Negative consequences of Shyness

Shyness has been linked to indices of maladaptive behaviors, particularly along the internalizing domains.( Coplan & Armer, 2005). In the preschoolers, shyness is related to anxiety during free play with peers, emotional problems and other internalizing problems. (Phillipsen, Bridges, McLemore, & Saponaro, 1999). Shy children display lower social competence and self-esteem, more academic difficulties, and tend to be rejected more by their peers. (Bohlin, Haegkull, & Andersson, 2005)

Furthermore in adolescence, shyness becomes increasingly associated with the problems like loneliness, depressive symptoms, inhibition, lower self-worth as well as less coping strategies. (Crozier, 1995).

Murberg (2009) study examines the relation between shyness, social support and depressive symptoms in a large sample of 259 students with age range of 14 to 16 years in two secondary schools. Results showed positive associations of depressive symptoms with shyness .In addition, interactive effect of shyness and peer support were associated with depressive symptoms in students.

There are some serious and dire consequences of shyness .(Carducci & Zimbardo,1995)Individuals with shyness do not participate in social activities ,and are verbally and non-verbally less communicative.(Henderson & Zimbardo,1998).

Shy individuals have cognitive problems, such as they are unable to have lucid thoughts in front of other people. (Carducci & Zimbardo,1995). They usually freeze up while talking .They seem to be arrogant with others where as in actual they are anxious and fearful.(Carducci & Zimbardo,1995).