Effects of Various Parenting Style On Children at Different Age Group

International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: www.ijfmr.com ● Email: editor@ijfmr.com
Effects of various Parenting Style on children at

Different Age Group
Ms. Anita Khosla1, Ms. Pooja Sharma2
1
Principal- GD Goenka Public School Dwarka
2
M.A. Clinical Psychology, School Counsellor, GD Goenka Public School, Dwarka
ABSTRACT
Parenting styles play a crucial role in shaping children's emotional, social, and cognitive development,
influencing their behavior, self-esteem, academic performance, and overall well-being. This paper
examines the various parenting styles—authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful—as
defined by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind, and explores how each style impacts a child's
development across cultural and socio-economic contexts.Modern parenting is blended with various
concerns. An emergingstudy highlights how individual temperament, environmental factors, and parent-
child interactions modify these outcomes, underscoring the complexity of parenting effects. This study
further explores the significance of adaptive parenting approaches, which adjust to children’s changing
needs, to support their growth in a dynamic world. Insights gained may contribute to enhancing
parenting practices and informing educational and policy interventions aimed at promoting optimal child
development. The impact of social class on the selection of parenting style is also considered in the
research.
Keywords: Parenting Styles, authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, neglectful, psychological well

being, Emotional Intelligence.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Good parenting is an intricate and dynamic process that profoundly shapes a child’s development,
guiding them toward emotional, social, and intellectual growth. At its core, effective parenting involves
nurturing a strong bond with children, rooted in empathy, respect, and open communication. Rather than
adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, good parenting is adaptable and sensitive to the unique needs and
temperaments of each child. Research consistently highlights that children raised in environments
characterized by warmth, support, and structure are more likely to develop resilience, self-confidence,
and positive relationships with others.
Positive parenting emphasizes guidance over punishment, using constructive discipline to teach children
the values of accountability and self-control. This approach encourages autonomy, allowing children to
explore their surroundings and make choices within boundaries, fostering critical thinking and decision-
making skills.
Additionally, good parenting requires self-awareness and a commitment to continuous learning. Parents
who are willing to reflect on their parenting style, adapt to new information and strategies. This
IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 1

adaptability ensures that parents are not only authority figures but also mentors and role models who
foster a sense of security, trust, and lifelong curiosity in their children.
In sum, good parenting is about creating a balanced environment where love and discipline
coexist, empowering children to grow into emotionally intelligent, socially responsible, and
intellectually curious individuals.
Patterns of Parenting Styles

Diana Baumrind, a developmental psychologist, identified three main parenting styles: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive (later research added a fourth, neglectful or uninvolved). These styles
are based on two main factors: the level of responsiveness (warmth) and the level of demandingness
(control) that parents exhibit toward their children.
1. Authoritative Parenting: This style combines high responsiveness with high demandingness.
Authoritative parents set clear expectations and enforce rules, but they are also warm, supportive,
and open to dialogue. They encourage independence, explain the reasons behind rules, and listen to
their children’s input. This style is associated with positive outcomes, such as higher self-esteem,
better social skills, and a balanced sense of responsibility in children.
2. Authoritarian Parenting: In this style, parents are high in demandingness but low in
responsiveness. Authoritarian parents enforce strict rules and expect obedience without question,
often using punishment to control behaviour. There is little room for open communication or
independence, as the focus is on discipline and adherence to authority. Children of authoritarian
parents may follow rules but can struggle with self-esteem, autonomy, and social interactions.
3. Permissive Parenting: Permissive parents are highly responsive but low in demandingness. They
are nurturing and indulgent, often avoiding strict rules or structure. Permissive parents allow children
significant freedom and tend to act more like friends than authority figures. Children raised with this
style may develop high self-confidence but can also struggle with self-discipline and respect for
authority due to the lack of boundaries.
4. Neglectful (Uninvolved) Parenting: This style, added later by researchers, is low in both
responsiveness and demandingness. Neglectful parents are often disengaged or detached from their
children’s lives, providing little guidance, nurturing, or attention. This can lead to a lack of trust and
difficulties in relationships for the child, who may struggle with emotional regulation, self-esteem,
and independence.
Baumrind’s work has greatly influenced our understanding of how parenting styles impact child
development, with authoritative parenting generally associated with the most positive developmental
outcomes.
As children move into school, peer and community contexts, the parent-child relationship changes.
Recent changes in the family – such as high rates of divorce, maternal employment – can have positive
as well as negative effects on children. In middle childhood, the amount of time children spend with
parents declines dramatically. The child’s growing independence means that parents must deal with new
issues like misuse of the facilities like internet access, mobile phones, substance abuse, teenage
pregnancy, problems between peer groups, emotional problems, all forms of child abuse and
exploitations, lack of social responsibility, etc. The common thinking is that authoritative pattern of
parenting style is best for child development. But it may vary according to culture and societal changes
(Myers- Walls et al., 2006).

From one point of view there are many parenting styles as there are parents. One helpful grouping is
provided in E.E LeMasters’ listing of five parenting styles: the martyr, the pal, the police officer, the
teacher-counsellor, and the athletic coach. Individual parents probably combine elements of two or more
of these styles in their own personal parenting styles.
The Martyr- Parents will do anything for their child. They always do what the children want them to
do.
The Police Officer- parents make sure the child always obeys all the rules, and they punish their
children for even minor offences.
The Pal- they are friends to their children. They adopt a laissez- faire discipline policy, and allow their
children to set their own goals, rules and limits, with little or no guidance from parents.
The Teacher Counsellor – This model conceptualizes the parents as almost omnipotent in guiding
children’s development. If they do the right things at the right time, their children will more than likely
be happy, intelligent and successful.
The Athletic Coach- the coach is expected to have sufficient ability and knowledge of the game and to
be prepared and confident to lead players to do their best and, it is hoped, to succeed.
Each of these parenting styles has its own advantages and disadvantages. The parent as martyr faces
some problems like, the goals the martyring parents set are impossible to carry out and the parent always
feels guilty. The parent as pal style points out that there are some relationship risks. If things do not go
well, parents may want to retract to a more formal, authoritarian style of parenting. But once they have
established buddy relationship, it is difficult to regain authority. Children are more likely to be
influenced by their parents’ knowledge and expertise or wish to identify with parents’ values than by the
parents’ authority. The key is respect and a close relationship; habitual punishment and the policing of
adolescents are far fewer effective modes of socialization. The style of parent as teacher counsellor put
the needs of the child above the parents’ needs. It may be difficult for most parents to always be there to
stimulate the children. Children also have inherited intellectual capacities and needs. Instead of this
parenting style an interactive perspective regards the influence between parent and child as mutual and
reciprocal. The athletic coach style recognizes that parents, like coaches, have their own personalities
and needs. Once individuals become parents, they remain in this role the rest of their lives. As we
explore parenting over the course of life, we will apply principles and suggestions from the interactive
and athletic coach perspectives on parenting.
1.1 MERITS AND DEMERITS OF PARENTING STYLES
What kind of parenting style helps children become happy about themselves and friendly with others?
How these parenting styles affect children in their later life. The outcomes of any given parenting style
on any given child depends onmany factors that interact with each other, including the child’s age, sex
and temperament.; the parents’ personality characteristics, personal history, economic circumstances,
and like; the needs of all the family members; and the values of the culture.
Authoritarian parenting styles generally lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank
lower in happiness, social competence and self-esteem. They lack social competence as the parent
generally predicts what the child should do instead of allowing the child to choose by him or herself.
The children also rarely take initiatives. They are socially withdrawn and look to others to decide what’s
right. These children tend to be low in self-confidence and lack social and academic competence. These
children lack spontaneity and curiosity. These children were often characterized by lacking spontaneity
and intellectual curiosity (Cole et al., 2005).

Authoritative parenting styles tend to result in children who are happy, capable and successful.
Authoritative parenting without physical punishment produces the most positive results and the fewest
problems for children in today’s world. Children who have been raised in authoritative homes score
higher on a variety of measures of competence, social development, self-perceptions, and mental health
than those raised in authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful homes. This is true not only in childhoods,
but also during adolescence, as evidenced by higher academic achievement and psychological
development, and fewer behavioral problems (Ballantine, 2001).
Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These
children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school. The
permissive style of child rearing is nurturant and accepting, but it avoids making demands or imposing
controls of any kind. Permissive parents allow children to make many of their ow decisions at an age
when they are not capable of doing so. They can eat meals and go to bed when they feel like it and
watch as much television as they want. They do not have to learn good manners or do any household
chores. Although some permissive parents truly believe that this style of child rearing is best, many
others lack confidence in their ability to influence their child’s behavior and are disorganized and
ineffective in running their households (Berk, 1998). Children with permissive parents tend to have self-
esteem and good social skills but are more prone to problem behavior. Accepting responsibility is
difficult for many of them.
Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control,
have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers.
Children develop best when they have love and limits. If they are indulged or neglected and given little
guidance, they won’t learn self-control and may become quite selfish, unruly and lacking in direction.
And if they receive too much guidance, as the children of authoritarian parents do, they will have few
opportunities to learn self-reliance and may lack confidence in their own decision-making abilities. In
today’s complex world, men and women are not ascertained about how to rear children as they were in
previous generations. Clarification of parenting values and implementing them in warm, supportive and
appropriately demanding ways are crucial for the welfare of the next generation and society.
1.2 SOCIAL CLASS AND PARENTING STYLES
The ideas that parents have about parenting and the ways in which parents perform their parenting
functions differ across socioeconomic strata. Parents from different socioeconomic strata rear their
children differently, partly in response to the different circumstances in which they live as well as ways
of interacting with the world, including their children. Socioeconomic status (SES) remains a topic of
great interest to those who study children’s development. This interest derives from a belief that high
SES families afford their children an array of services, goods, parental actions, and social connections
that potentially rebound to the benefit of children and a concern that many low SES children lack across
to those same resources and experiences, thus putting them at risk for development problems (Bradley
and Corwyn, 2002).
Parenting styles are shaped in part by socioeconomic factors. Middle class and lower class parents often
pursue different goals and emphasize different values in raising their children. Compared to middle and
upper class parents, lower and working class parents tend to (1) stress obedience and respect for
authority; (2) be more restrictive and authoritarian more frequently using power assertive disciplined; (3)
reason with their children less frequently, and (4) show less warmth and affection. Why might these
differences in parenting behavior exist? Most explanations center on the stresses associated with low

income living and their effects on parenting.

One explanation for the link between economic factors and parenting styles focuses on the skills needed
by workers in different occupations. Parents from lower socioeconomic groups may quite sensibly
emphasize obedience to authority figures because their job demands it. Middle and upper class parents
may reason with their children and stress individual initiative, curiosity and creativity more because
these are the attributes that count for business executives, professionals, and other white collar workers.
Both middle- and lower- income parents have devised styles of parenting that are well adapted to the
distinctive demands of their socio-cultural setting.
1.3 CHANGING PARENTING STYLES
Historically child rearing had a strong parental orientation. That is parents tend to rear their children
according to their own needs and values. But over time, a transition from the parental to the child
orientation has been made (Bell, 1971). The study of human development has been guided through most
of its history by a simple parent effects model in which it is assumed that influences in the family run by
one way: from parent to child. But recent research also proved that a child’s behavior influences the
style of parenting his or her parents use. A child effects model of family influence highlights instances in
which children influence their parents rather than vice versa. Child’s antisocial behavior elicit coercive
and ineffective parenting style from parents at the same time that ineffective parenting style elicit
antisocial behavior from the child, it becomes hard to say who is more influential. This scenario is best
developed by a transactional model of family influence. In which parent and child influence one another
reciprocally (Siegelman, 1999).
Like fashions seem to go in cycles. Yesterday’s parents feeling their own parents were too strict, turned
to self-demand schedules, child-centered homes, progressive education and more indulgent concepts of
child rearing. Now some parents are worried that today’s children are too spoiled so are reacting to what
they feel has been over permissiveness. It is evident that parenting styles change from one generation to
the next and that parents often must sort out conflicting advice (Rice, 1979). A set of studies have clearly
demonstrated that early childcare-giving patterns vary within India according to family size, class /
caste, rural – urban, and even regional differences (Sharma, 2003).
1.4 ROLE OF PARENT’S IN DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN
The profile of cognitive abilities, beliefs, ethical values, coping defenses, and salient emotional moods
that characterize each child at each developmental stage is the result of diverse influences operating in
complex ways. Most students of human development agree that the most important determinants of the
different profiles include 1) the inherited physiologic patterns that are called temperamental qualities, 2)
parental practices and personality, 3) quality of schools attended, 4) relationships with peers, 5) ordinal
position in the family, and, finally, 6) the historical era in which late childhood and early adolescence are
spent. Each of these factors exerts its major influence on only some components of the psychological
profile and is usually most effective during age periods. For example, the quality of social relations with
peers affects primarily the child’s beliefs about his/her acceptability to others and has its major effect
after school entrance. By contrast, parent conversations with the child, and especially naming unfamiliar
objects, affect the child’s future verbal talents and have maximal effect during the first 6 years of life.
Current discussions of the consequences of parental practices, whether in the media or in professionals’
journals, favor one of two positions. One awards seminal power to parental factors; the other minimizes
the family. The advocates the attachment theory, for example, propose that the relationships established
between an infant and its caretakers during the first 2 years of life have a permanent effect on the child’s

future.4 But Harris’s recent book, The Nurture Assumption, makes the opposite claim by arguing that
parents have little or no permanent influence on their child’s future personality. Although the attachment
theorists take too strong a position, I side with most developmental scholars who, in disagreement with
Harris, believe that parents do affect their child’s psychological growth. This article summarizes what
most developmental scientists believe to be the major effects of parents on children.
It is important to appreciate, however, that some of these effects are difficult to qualify for and, as a
result, scholars working in this domain are caught between two opposing imperatives. On the one hand,
they recognize that conclusions must be based on empirical evidence; if one does not have valid
measurements, one should be cautious
1.5 PARENTAL INFLUENCE: DIRECT INTERACTION
Parents can affect their children through at least three different mechanisms. The most obvious, and the
one easiest both to imagine and to measure, involves the consequences of direct interactions with the
child that could be recorded on film. For example, a mother praises a 3-year-old for eating properly, a
father threatens the loss of a privilege because a child refuses to go to bed, and a parent names an
unfamiliar animal in a picture book. These everyday events that involve the rewarding of desirable
actions, the punishment of undesired ones, and the transfer of knowledge from parent to child have a
cumulative effect. Failure to discipline acts of disobedience and/or aggression is correlated with greater
levels of responsivity in the child.
However, these first-order effects can have second – order consequences that appear later in life. A 7-
year-old with a more extensive vocabulary than her peers, because her parents encouraged language
development 5 years earlier, will master the tasks of the elementary grades more easily and, as a result,
perceive herself as more competent than her peers. This belief is likely to embolden her to resist
domination by others and, perhaps, motivate the initiation of unusually challenging tasks. The 7-year-old
who has not chastised aggressive behavior earlier or who had abusive or overly intrusive parents is likely
to be aggressive with peers.
1.6 EMOTIONAL IDENTIFICATION
An emotional identification with either or both parents represents a second, quite different way in which
the family affects children. By age 4 to 5 years, children believe, unconsciously, that some of the
attributes of their parents are part of their own repertoire, even although this belief might have no
objective basis, 11 A girl whose mother is afraid of storms and large animals is tempted to assume that
she, too, is afraid of these dangerous events; a girl with a relatively fearless mother will come to the
opposite conclusion. In addition, children share vicariously some of the experiences that occur to the
parents with whom they are identified. A boy whose father is popular with friends and relatives, for
example, will find it easier to conclude that he, too, has qualities that make him acceptable to others.
The more distinctive the features shared between child and parent, the stronger the identification of the
former with the latter. A father who is tall, thin, and has red hair and freckles will, other things equal,
engender a stronger identification in a son with these four features than in a son who is short, chubby,
brown-haired, and has no freckles. That is why many members of minority groups that possess
distinctive features have strong identification; for example, whites in South Africa are more strongly
identified with their ethnic group than whites in the United States.
Children also can identify with the class, ethnic or religious group to which their family belongs and
often an imperative to honor the identification. To fail to do so is to violate a principle of cognitive
consistency between an ethical standard and an action and, as a result, to feel uncertain. Some

adolescents for whom the group identification generates anxiety may attempt to minimize bases for the
perceived similarity; hence, some Jews change their last name, some Mexicans try to lighten their skin,
and some Africans Americans straighten their hair.
The importance of identification for personality development means that the parents’ personality, talents,
and character, as perceived by the child, are of significance. When the content of parental rewards and
punishments is in accord with the adult’s persona as a role model, the content of adult socialization is
potentiated. A child praised for her intellectual competence by parents who read books and display a
curiosity about the world is more likely to value intellectual pursuits than one whose parents praise
academic success but do not display any interest in intellectual competence in their personal lives.
Children tend to honor what parents do rather than what they say.
The power of identification can be seen in the robust relation between the educational level of the
parents, which is a good index of the social class of the family, and many psychological outcomes,
including level of school achievement, frequency of aggressive behavior, and attitude toward authority.
The psychological differences between young adults born to college graduates, compared with those
born to parents who never graduated from high school, cannot be explained completely as a result of
direct interactions between parents and children. These psychological products also involve the child’s
identification with the family’s social class. The features that define social class, as distinct from
ethnicity, include place of residence, nature of the neighborhood, and material possessions. But because
most parents do not remind their children of their social class and signs of family’s social class position
can be subtle, a child’s discovery of the family’s class is conceptually more difficult than discovery of
his/her gender or ethnicity and usually is not articulated before 7 years of age.
The proportion of economically stressed families in a particular region will affect the strength of a
child’s identification. An awareness of those who are affluent and those who are not is most distinctive
in societies like our own, when there is considerable variation in material wealth. No uniform
psychological outcomes flow from absolute poverty, but many predictable outcomes flow from the
belief that one’s family is either advantaged or disadvantaged relative to another. Because many
Americans believe that persistent hard work and intelligence are all that are needed to gain the wealth
that has become, in this century, a defining feature of personal worth, class has a greater potential for
shame in America than it does in many countries of the world. Ten-year-olds who identify with their
relatively poor families are vulnerable to feelings of shame or psychological impotence if they wonder
whether their family’s status is attributable to the fact that their parents were either lazy or incompetent.
The literary critic Frank Kermode, born to poor parents, once admitted to feeling like an outsider,
“Looking the part while not being equal to it seems to be something I do rather well.” Because
identification with a poor family can generate anxiety, shame, or anger, it can represent a chronic
psychological stress that might contribute to the generally poorer health of the economically
disadvantaged.
It has proven difficult to gather the objective evidence needed to affirm beyond doubt the truth of these
statements about identification because of insufficiently sensitive procedures. However, some evidence
does support this claim. In one unpublished study frim my laboratory, white high school students, all
with good grades, who came from either upper-middle or working class families in the Boston area,
came to a laboratory at Harvard University to be interviewed and evaluated for autonomic functioning.
The working class adolescents were more subdued in their interaction with the female examiner. In
addition, the working-class youth had greater power in the lower-frequency band of the cardiac

spectrum. This second fact implies greater sympathetic tone on the baroreceptor reflex, perhaps
attributable to greater apprehension in a context that was symbolic of affluence and privilege.
1.7 FAMILY STORIES
A third mechanism of family influence is related to identification but is more symbolic. Some parents
tell their children stories about relatives – uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins- who were, or are,
especially accomplished in some domain. Perhaps an uncle made an important discovery, accumulated
wealth, performed a courageous act, and was a talented athlete or writer, or a respected public official.
The child is likely to feel pride on hearing these stories because of the implication that if he or she is
biologically related to this important family member, the child, too, must also possess some admirable
characteristics. George Homans, an influential Harvard sociologist, noted in a memoir written shortly
before death that he coped with his childhood anxiety aver poor school grades and unpopularity with
peers by reminding himself that he could trace his pedigree back to John Adams. Charles Darwin’s
description of his father glows with awe for his father’s intelligence, sympathy, kindness and business
sense. Darwin knew about the inheritance of psychological features through his acquaintance with
animal breeders and may have felt that his cognitive talents were inevitable given his family’s eminence.
Direct interactions, identification, and knowledge of the accomplishments of family members are three
important ways in which families influence children. The first mechanism has its greatest effect on
intellectual development and character traits, especially the control of aggression and motivation for
achievement. The second and third mechanisms, identification and family myths, have a greater
influence on the child’s confidence or doubt about his/her talent and, therefore, on the child’s
expectation of future success or failure.
1.8 INDICATORS OF FAMLIY RELEVANCE
A persuasive source of support for the significance of family experience is found in follow-up studies of
young children who suffered serious privation, usually the result of war, and were later adopted by
nurturant families. Many of the orphans produced by World War II and the Korean conflict, who had
extremely fragile bonds to any caretaker in their early years, appeared to develop well after adoption by
loving foster parents. More recently, a group of children who had spent the first year in depriving
orphanages in Romania were adopted by nurturant British parents. When they arrived in London, they
were emaciated and psychologically retarded, as one would expect, given their harsh experience.
However, when they were evaluated several years later, after adoption by middle-class parents, a
majority, although not all, were similar in their intellectual profile to the average British child (Michael
Rutter, personal communication, 1998).
A study of 13624 families living in 10 different cities provides a particularly persuasive demonstration
of the importance of the family. The children, who were observed as infants and again at 3 years of age,
experienced varied forms of early care. Some were in day care centers, some were in family day care,
some were raised only at home. The form of care outside the home had little effect on the prevalence of
problems with self-control, compliance, and asocial behavior; variation among the families was a critical
determinant of differences in these psychological traits.
1.9 OTHER INFLUENCES ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Although empiric data affirm that parental behaviors and personality traits influence the child’s talents,
motivation, academic performance, and social behavior, their influence is part of a larger web of
conditions that includes inherited temperamental biases, ordinal position, social class, ethnicity, quality
of peer friendships, and the historical era in which adolescence is spent. The importance of temperament

is seen in a longitudinal study of a group of healthy children. Approximately 20% of these healthy
infants inherited a temperament that was revealed at 4 months of age in vigorous levels of motor activity
and irritability to unfamiliar stimulation. Approximately one third of these infants, called high reactive,
were shy and fearful of unfamiliar people and settings during the preschool years, and approximately
one fourth were likely to develop anxious symptoms when they were 7 years old. Although only 20% of
the highly reactive infants were consistently shy and fearful from 14 months to 8 years of age, it was rare
for a high reactive infant to become a consistently bold, extrovert child.
The influence of ordinal position is affirmed by the fact that, controlling for social class, first-born
children obtain better grades and are more often high school valedictorians than later born children. The
influence of historical era is revealed in a study of the cohort of Americans that was between 10 and 20
years of age during the economic Depression in America from 1930 to 1940. A large proportion of these
American adolescents, who are now in their 7th decade, saved more money than the generation before or
after and conducted their lives with a gnawing concern over financial loss.
The protest the Vietnam War at the end of the 1960s also affected large numbers of privileged
adolescents who turned against the values of established authority. College students seized
administration buildings or shared sexual partners in unheated communal homes. High school youth
defiantly left their classrooms to protest the war, and they got away with it. It is heady for a 16-year old
to defy the rules of authority and escape punishment.
For many youths, such experiences eroded a tendency to worry about coming to work at 10:00 in the
morning instead of 9 and leaving at 4 instead of 5. Many of these middle-class youth thumbed their
noses at authority because they happened to be born during a brief period when segments of American
society were uncertain as to which actions were legitimate. When history tears a hole in the fabric of
consensual assumptions, the mind flies through it into a space free of hoary myth to invent a new
conception of self, ethics and society.
1.10 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The incompatibility of the parenting role with the working role is but one source of frustration for
fathers and mothers trying to raise their children. At least five reasons of frustration, which is associated
to parenting, might be identified:
• Parenting today requires one to learn attitudes and techniques that are different from those of one’s
parents.
• Parents today rear their children in a pluralist society, characterized by diverse and conflicting
values; Parents are only one of several influences on children. Others are schools, peers, television,
movies, music, books and travel.
• Parents feel anxious and guilty about their performance.
• Changing goal from on best technique to another.
• Society does not offer parents much psychological or social support.
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to describe the extent to which parenting styles affect a preschool aged
child’s social emotional development. To facilitate the appropriate development, parents need to support
the child’s growing sense of self-reliance, self-esteem, behavior control and encourage the child to
develop meaningful relationships with other adult models outside the family. The research that has

previously been done on this topic will play an important part of this study, as findings in this area have
shown that there is a correlation between the two variables.
Social Emotional Development in Young Children
Cognitive and social-emotional trajectories represent the two basic aspects of children’s development,
according to Feldman and Eidelman (2008). Cognitive development undergoes several periods of
reorganization during the first 5 years. In the first year, cognitive growth primarily involves sensory
learning, perceptual-motor integration, and simple attention. As the attention system matures during the
second year and infants begin to use symbols, cognitive skills expand to include rudimentary concepts,
planning, and goal-directed behavior. During the preschool age, with the rapid growth of language and
the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, cognitive development involves the mastery of executive
functions and the ability to employ complex semantic categories (Feldman & Eidelman, 2008).
Children’s understanding and regional of emotional displays and their associations with children’s social
competence have received a great deal of attention in the literature over the last decade. Children’s
successful management and display of emotions can be thought of as a form of emotional competence
(Saarni, 1999). Halberstadt, Denham, and Dunsmore (2001) have articulated a useful distinction between
the constructs of emotional competence and social competence. Emotional competence is focused on
aspects of using emotions to send and receive messages that are important to social interactions, usually
with other children (Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001). Although it is often recognized that
there is some overlap between emotional competence and social competence, the latter is usually defined
by one’s social skills and peer status, whereas the former focuses on more intrapersonal qualities, such
as the ability to understand or produce appropriate emotion signals (Halberstadt, Denham, and
Dunsmore, 2001). Children’s positive feelings about themselves are related to the parent child
relationship. Fancily processes, such as the quality of parent-child relationships, influence the
development of a wide range of competencies during the preschool years and developing appropriate
social emotional skills are important in a young child’s life because it sets the foundation of one’s
concept of self and others for many years to come.
According to the University of Wisconsin-Extension, a strong self-concept helps children believe in and
rely upon themselves. They find the world friendly, rather than threatening. Children first need to know
that they are loved and accepted for who they are. Then, with this as a basis, their natural impulse is to
take that love and learn to contribute it to the world in a constructive way. So, when we look at how
important it is for a child to have appropriate social emotional skills, it is important to look at their
surroundings more closely to indicate what factors influence their development.
Social Emotional State of Parents
Social Emotional Development doesn’t just occur throughout the preschool years, but rather, social
emotional development is a part of everyone’s daily interaction. Therefore, the set of feelings and
understanding about one’s own emotions and the emotions of others are equally as important for parents
to understand in their role. According to Lagace-Séguin and d'Entremont, parents who internalize their
own emotional knowledge and their children's emotional knowledge exhibit two distinct parenting
characteristics. These characteristics have been defined as an emotion coaching and anemotion
dismissing typology, respectively. Much like an athletic coach teaches children how to play a sport,
emotion coaching parents recognize the feelings are a part of normal life.They accept their child’s
expression of feelings, even negative ones such as anger or sadness. These parents view feelings as an
opportunity to teach their child about the world of emotions and to build a closer relationship with their

child. (Gottman, J. & DeClaire J, 1997). The emotion coaching style is defined as parents “awareness of
emotions. This emotion coaching style is defined as parents “awareness of emotions within themselves
and their children, and the ability to use this awareness to benefit their child’s socialization. Parents who
use this style are aware of their own emotions, can talk about these emotions in a differentiated manner,
are aware of these emotions in their children, and assist their children with their emotions. Emotion
coach’s value a child’s negative emotions as an opportunity for intimacy and can tolerate spending time
with a sad, angry or fearful child without becoming impatient with the emotion. Gottman and DeClaire
(1997) reported that this form of parenting is associated with children’s increased trust of their feelings,
better emotion regulation and more competent problem-solving. Additionally, as compared with their
peers, children of emotional- coaches tend to have higher self-esteem, to perform better academically
and to have more positive peer relations (Gottman & DeClaire, 1997).
The emotion dismissing parenting style refers to a lack of awareness and therefore a diminished ability
to deal with children’s emotions. Characteristically, such parents lack awareness of emotions within
themselves and their children, fear being emotionally out of control, are unaware of techniques to
address negative emotions, and believe negative emotions to reflect poor parenting skills (Gottman &
DeClaire, 1997). Furthermore, instead of addressing displays of negative emotions, they ignore or
dismiss emotions, attempt to rid the child of the negative emotions immediately, and strive to reassure
the child that negative feeling always passes quickly without lasting effects. Children with dismissing
parents are more likely to believe that their negative feelings, such as sadness and anger are not valid
under any circumstances (Gottman& DeClaire, 1997). Parental emotional styles are theoretically distinct
from the traditional parental disciplinary styles.
As adults build positive relationships with their children, their potential influence on the child’s
development grows exponentially. Children cue in on the presence of meaningful and caring adults; they
attend differentially and selectively to what adults say and do, and they seek out ways to ensure even
more positive attention from adults (Gail, 2003).
Various Styles of Parenting
Perceptions, attitudes and beliefs are important factors in understanding parenting styles and their
potential impact on children’s development. An individual’s beliefs about childrearing styles and
parenting goals may be important considerations in understanding childrearing strategies. Information
about how family relations are experienced in families may extend knowledge about influences on
parents” choices about parenting styles and the views of family relations in their own homes. In brief,
according to De Lisi, 2007 Authoritarian parentsenforce rules strictly, value obedience, and discourage
verbal give and take with their children. Authoritative parents also set firm rules but provide rationales
to the child, solicit input from the child, and are warm and involved with the child. Permissive parents
do not impose limits, rarely discipline the child, are warm and accepting, and often offer unconditional
support (2007).
More specifically, Authoritarian parents don’t feel they need to explain their rules or the reasons why
they expect their children to do certain things. The focus of these parents is on what their children do
wrong and the punishment for misbehavior is often harsh. Should a child question a rule, they will often
hear from their parents, “Because I said so”. Parents that use this style feel they must be in control all the
time. They parent by a set of rules that must be followed. Children have little or no freedom. Discipline
is usually a form of reward and punishment. Children learn early to please their parents to gain a reward.
They may behave because they fear their parents. Children either go along or have a hard time learning

to think for themselves or they may rebel in reaction to the controlling methods of their parents
(LeFebvre, 1997).
Authoritative parents typically have clear expectations for their children and enforce reasonable limits.
Children are given limited choices to help them learn and experience the consequences of their choices
and that their decisions count. Giving choices balances freedom with responsibilities. When children
have some control and ownership in their lives, they are more cooperative and have better self-esteem.
Parents focus on encouragement and acknowledgement of good behavior. Parents focus on discipline
that teaches not one that intimidates with punishment or promotes good behavior with inappropriate
rewards.
And lastly, permissive parents have concerns that their children will not like them if they set limits or
they see themselves as their children’s friend and not their parent who is there to guide and set limits.
These parents allow freedom with little or no responsibility. As their children get older these parents
may feel they have no power to make changes in their children’s misbehavior. Children without limits
have no sense of responsibility, have trouble with relationships and the rights of others and can find the
world a difficult place. It is unfair to raise a child without limits or to keep changing the limits that are
set. Children do not need or want freedom without limitation (LeFebvre, 1997).
The authoritative, permissive and authoritarian styles have been examined most extensively and are
associated with different levels of social and cognitive competence in preschool children, children in
middle childhood, and adolescents (De Lisi, 2007). The results of these and other studies are consistent
and lead to clear conclusions about optimal childrearing styles. Children of authoritative parents earn
higher grades in school; are more achievement oriented, independent, self-reliant, friendly, and
cooperative; are less depressed, anxious, and dependent; and show lower levels of internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems (De Lisi, 2007). Furthermore, the relation between authoritative
parenting and positive cognitive and social development in children appears to occur across social
classes and ethnic groups (De Lisi, 2007). Thus, the research literature shows the positive aspects of
authoritative childrearing styles over the alternative types of styles.
If the authoritative parenting style is that of “best practice”, one would assume that parents would strive
to adopt those characteristics into their parenting practices. However, because all three styles are still
widely used, it is apparent that many parents are unaware of the effects their childrearing practices have
on their children. According to De Lisi (2007), many parents are likely to be unaware of findings that
appear in the formal research literature, or they may have been exposed to incomplete or unclear
presentations of research findings that were summarized in the general media rather than in the scientific
media. In addition, research on parent beliefs and parent knowledge reveals that beliefs stem from
multiple sources, including one’s own history as a child, observations from everyday life, socio-
historical and socio-cultural factors, personal experiences as a parent, one’s own parenting goals, and
opinions presented in popular literature (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & Sigel, 1995). These factors might lead
parents to value permissive or authoritarian styles and thus continue to observe these childrearing styles.
Some parents believe that obedience and punishment are the basis for rearing children of strong
character and competence. Similarly, other possible reasons for enduring beliefs in childrearing
stylescould be that the primary force driving parental behavior is not a focus on socializing the child but
beliefs that their role as parent should focus on achieving a happy child with high self-esteem who has
harmonious relationships with the parents and others in the family. Such individuals might be more
likely to become permissive parents because they think this childrearing approach will achieve these

goals of producing a well-adjusted child with positive family relations. Also, parents may believe that
the path to a happy, well-adjusted child lies in creating and maintaining positive family relationships,
rather than in an authoritative approach that enhances development through the child’s success in
meeting challenges within a warm environment that supports the child’s own efforts to address demands
(De Lisi, 2007). The social emotional development is an important part of a child’s ability to interact
with others and create an environment suitable for learning, growing and developing.
Parenting and its Correlation with Emotions and Self-Esteem
Because the self-esteem of a child has a correlation with the social emotional development of children, it
is important to examine this broad topic, self-esteem, as it relates to parenting styles and the emotional
development in children. Parents can create an environment where children experience acceptance,
encouragement, responsibility and love that builds and nourishes their self-esteem. High self-esteem is
not something that you can teach a child. Self Esteem is built gradually, little by little, in the day-to day
interactions that are compiled into a child’s image of him or herself. Because interaction is so important
between the child and parents, it is important to look at how each parenting style might play a role in the
self-esteem of a preschool aged child. Amato and Ochiltree (1986) found that interpersonal resources
such as, parental expectations, help and attention were more strongly related to the development of self-
esteem of young children than family structure resources, such as parental income, education, and
occupation. This finding is consistent with research that implies the importance of the home
environment and the quality of the parent-child relationship in the building of the child’s self-esteem
(Amato & Ochiltree, 1986).
Additional studies have shown that parenting style has been found to predict child wellbeing in the
domains of social competence, academic performance, psychological development, and problem
behavior. Research based on parent interviews, child reports, and parent observations consistently finds
that children and adolescents whose parents are authoritative rate themselves and are rated by objective
measures as more socially and instrumentally competent than those whose parents are non-authoritative
(Baumrind, 1991).
Children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved perform poorly in all domains. In general,
parental responsiveness predicts social competence and psychological functioning, while parental
demands are associated with instrumental competence and behavioral control (i.e., academic
performance and deviance). These findings indicate: Children and adolescents from authoritarian
families (high in parental demand, but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school
and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but they have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher
levels of depression. Children and adolescents from indulgent homes (high in responsiveness, low in
parental demand) are more likely to be involved in problem behavior and perform less well in school,
but they have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression.
In reviewing the literature on parenting style, one is struck by the consistency with which authoritative
upbringing is associate with both instrumental and social competence and lower levels of problem
behavior in both boys and girls at all developmental stages (Baumrind, 1991). The benefits of
authoritative parenting and the detrimental effects of uninvolved parenting are evident as early as the
preschool years and continue throughout adolescence and into early adulthood. Although specific
differences can be found in the competence evidenced by each group, the largest differences are found
between children whose parents are unengaged and their peers with more involved parents. Differences
between children from authoritarian homes and peers are equally consistent, but somewhat smaller

(Baumrind, 1991). Just as authoritative parents appear to be able to balance their conformity demands
with their respect for their respect for their children’s individuality, so children from authoritative homes
appear to be able to balance the claims of external conformity and achievement demands with their need
for individuation and autonomy.
Relations between Social and Emotional Competence
Children’s successful management and display of emotions can be thought of as a form of emotional
competence. Emotional competence is focused on aspects of using emotions to send and receive
messages that are important to social interactions; in contrast, social competence refers to children’s
ability to function effectively in social interactions, usually with other children (Halberstadt, Denham &
Dunsmore, 2001). Although it is often recognized that there is some overlap between emotional
competence and social competence, the latter is usually defined by one’s social skills and peer status,
whereas the former focuses on more intrapersonal qualities, such as the ability to understand or produce
appropriate emotion signals (Halberstadt, Denham & Dunsmore, 2001). The ways in which children’s
emotional competence is related to their social competence with peers. In general, children who are
better able to manage their emotional displays and exhibit more positive affect are rated by both teachers
and peers as more socially competent. Children learn the different rules and norms apply to different
everyday settings and they can adapt accordingly (Halberstadt, Denham & Dunsmore, 2001).
There are a variety of behaviors related to making and maintaining positive social relationships in the
preschool years such as: initiate and maintain social interactions, understand and follow the rules, solve
social problems, regulate their emotions, demonstrate trust in others. For example, young children who
display more positive affect were found to be given more attention by play partners. Similarly, when
parents report that their children display lower levels of negative effects, children tend to be rated more
favorably by teachers. Finally, observed positive affect among kindergarten-age children is related to
children being rated by teachers and peers as more socially competent both concurrently and one year
later in first grade (Isley, O”Neil, Clatfelter& Parke, 1999).
Other aspects of children’s emotional competence in addition to the positive or negative nature of their
affective displays are also related to social competence with peers. Specifically, researchers have been
interested in the role of children’s emotion regulation as a predictor of social competence. One can
assume that children who can regulate the intensity of their emotional displays will be a more acceptable
social interactive partner. A specific form of emotional competence that requires a blend of appropriate
expression and appropriate regulation of emotions is the use of display rules. A common definition of
display rules is that they are the expression of culturally appropriate responses to a given situation
regardless of the felt emotions (Davis, 1995; Saarni, 1984; Underwood, Coie &Herbsman, 1992). For
example, the culturally appropriate display rule for receiving a gif is to react positively even when one is
not particularly pleased with the item. Moreover, researchers have identified instances where display
rules are more likely to be followed. Specifically, Zeman and Garber(1996) found that for feelings of
anger and sadness, children indicate controlling their emotions (thus, adhering to cultural display rules)
with their peers more than with their parents. In recent years, researchers have examined the relation
between children’s use of display rules and aspects of social development (Davis, 1995; McDowell,
O”Neil& Parke, 2000; Saarni, 1984). Specifically, researchers have found that display rule use by
fourth-grade children was related to both teacher and peer ratings of social competence (McDowell,
O”Neil& Parke, 2000). That is, when children reacted to a disappointing gift with more positive and
fewer negative responses, they were seen as more socially competent by teachers and peers. Emotions

researchers have suggested several ways in which parents may influence their children’s emotional
competence (Eisenberg, Fabes & Murphy, 1998) including modeling of emotional competence,
coaching, and control. Most work in this area has focused on the links between parental behaviors and
children’s reporting of the regulation and understanding of emotions. For example, Denham and Grout
(1992) found that as mothers” levels of anger and contempt increased, children’s anger was higher
whereas their happiness levels were lower. More recently, McDowell, Kim, O”Neil, and Parke (2002)
reported that when parents modeled more positive effect, children reported higher levels of socially
appropriate ways of dealing with stressful, emotion-inducing events.
Another way in which parents may influence their children’s emotional competence is the amount of
acceptance or control of children’s emotional displays during parent-child interactions. Some researchers
have suggested that parents who are more controlling of their children’s emotions may be depriving their
children of opportunities for learning about the causes and consequences of inappropriate emotional
displays (McDowell & Parke, 2000). Conversely, parents who used more constructive coaching as
opposed to more control over children’s emotions had children who were better able to regulate
emotions and engage in self-soothing (Gottman, 1997). Other researchers have demonstrated that less
parental control is related to more positive aspects of children’s emotional functioning. For example,
Eisenberg, Fabes, and Murphy (1996) have reported that when parents were more accepting of their
children’s emotional displays, children developed more positive coping strategies. Isley and her
colleagues found that parental controlling behavior was negatively related to both social acceptance and
children’s own affective displays (Isley, O”Neil& Parke, 1996).
2.2 PARENTING STYLE IN CROSS CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
In reviewing the parenting style research in cross-cultural articles, the researcher found that scholars
globally used Baumrind’s typology. Because parenting styles were developed from a western
perspective, Hill (1995) reminded scholars to understand and interpret Baumrind’s typology accordingly
when applying it to other cultures. Moreover, Baumrind’s typology of parenting was developed in the
U.S. and based on the participants from different ethnic group who live in the U.S. Therefore, this
researcher believes that environment, socio economic status, education level, and cultural influence the
exhibition of the parenting style among different ethnic groups. One might stay that immigrant people
such as Asian American might practice the norms and values from their country which may influence
their parenting style. This section will discuss parenting style and its influence on children’s emotions
and behaviors of four ethnic groups in the United States.
European American Parentig Style
The researcher found it difficult to find a study that only focused on European American parents. Most
researchers who included European Americans also included other ethnicities such as African American,
Hispanic and Asian Americans and did not disaggregate for ethnic group. Despite this apparent
confounding, this researcher was able to collect information about European American parenting style
and its effect on children’s emotions and behaviors.
Darling and Steinberg (1993) found that most European American parents exhibited authoritative style
especially in middle class families. Another study found that children of authoritative parent’s exhibit
desired behaviors such as calmness, knowing the consequence of his/her behaviors, self-confidence,
self-esteem, maturity, and are able to communicate their thoughts to their parents (Buri, 1989; Takeuchi
& Takeuchi, 2008). A study by Shucksmith, Hendry, and Glendinning (1995) found that European
American children who have authoritarian parents tend to have more behavior problems such as

aggressiveness and stubbornness than European American children who have authoritative parents.
Moreover, Buri (1989) found that authoritative European American children showed positive outcomes
such as increased self-esteem and lower mental health problems such as stress and depression. In
contrast, children in authoritarian homes tend to exhibit undesired behavior such as aggression (Lamborn
et al., 1991) and poor social skills (Darling, 1999). It becomes evident that authoritative parenting is the
most beneficial for the child’s emotional, intellectual, and social development when compared to
authoritarian parenting.
A study by Supple and Small (2006) found that European American children who received authoritative
parenting from their mothers exhibited higher self-esteem, grade point average, and lowered behavior
problems that European American children who received authoritarian parenting from their mothers.
Another study by Miller, Loeber, and Hipwell (2009) found that when European American girls received
low parental warmth and harsh parenting, they are at risk of developing behavior problems such as
aggression, antisocial behavior, conduct problems, and oppositional behaviors. One might conclude that
European American children behave better when they received authoritative that authoritarian parenting.
Generally, research on European American parenting style revealed that when European American
parents exhibited authoritative parenting style, there is positive wellbeing among their children such as
high self-esteem and low hopelessness. In contrast, if European American parents exhibited authoritarian
parenting style, there are more emotional and behavioral problems among their children when compared
to other children from other ethnicities in the U.S. There are fewer studies of neglectful parenting styles
among European American parents because most researchers used measurement tools that only
measures the other three parenting styles (Beck et al., 2004; Jackson & Schemes, 2005). The present
research will include the neglectful parenting style as well as the other three styles when looking at the
European American parenting styles of Muslim children.
African American Parenting Style
This section will discuss African American parenting style and its effect on the children’s emotions and
behaviors. One study by Querido, Warner and Eyberg (2002) consisted of 108 African American
mothers who had children in preschool from age 3 to 6 years. The mothers were from 18 to 62 years old
and reported a mean of 13.5 years of education. Mother’s yearly income was around $11,000 to $20,000.
The psychometric instruments used in this study included the ECBI (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) to assess
behavior problems, the Parenting Styles and Dimensions (PSD; Robinson, Mandelco, Olsen, & Hart,
1995) which only assess authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting style, and AAAS-33
(Landrine&Klonoff, 1995) that was used to measure African American culture (Querido et al., 2002).
The results found children’s behavior problems were correlated with mothers’ education, income, and
parenting styles. This study revealed that mothers with low education level and low income were likely
to have permissive and authoritarian parenting styles, and they reported having more children with
problem behaviors such as aggressive and conduct problems, whereas authoritative mothers reported
having fewer children with problem behaviors.
The Querido et al. (2002) study is opposite to a study by Baumrind (1991) who found that children from
low income families are well behaved and able to control their emotions. Querido et al. (2002) found
that financial level is one factor that influences children’s behavior because children tantrum when their
parents are unable to fulfil their needs. In addition, permissive and authoritarian parenting did not help
children to minimize their tantrums suggesting that it is financial level and not parenting style that
contributes to children’s tendency to have tantrums. One might say that a low income level may

influence children’s behaviors and emotions, where some scholars found that low income children may
demonstrate behavior problems such as anger, aversion, and insecurity. Therefore, it is suggested that
parenting style and financial status have an influence on children’s feelings and attitudes.
Pezella (2010) examined the influence the authoritarian parenting on 464 African Americans and 134
European American from age 13 to adulthood. The results showed that authoritarian parenting tends to
increase delinquency and violent behavior among African American and European American’s
adolescents (Pezella, 2010). In addition, some scholars have argued that African American children
exhibit more behavior problems, such as aggression and hostility compared to European American’s
children because they are raised by authoritarian parents (Deater-Deckard, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit,
1996). Conversely, authoritative parenting was found to reduce delinquent behavior in both African
American and White adolescents.
Ginsburg et al. (2009) found that authoritative parenting was not useful to African American adolescents
who have substance use problems, while Pezella (2010) found that authoritative parenting was useful to
minimize delinquency behavior among African American adolescents. One might say that parenting
style may have different effects on different ethnic group. Referring to the studies above, one may
conclude that authoritative parenting is advantageous in decreasing behavior problems such as
delinquency and violence among African American and White adolescents. At the same time,
authoritative parenting was unable to prevent African American adolescents from being involved in
substance use problems. This is an example where authoritative parenting has advantages and
disadvantages to some ethnic groups. On the other hand, authoritarian parenting with harsh and stern
characteristics constantly contributes harmful effects to the psychological well-being among both ethnic
groups.
Asia American Parenting Style
This section will discuss Asian American parenting style and child’s emotions and behaviors. A study
that explored the relationship between Baumrind’s parenting styles and the academic achievement
among Korean children (Kim & Rohner, 2002) consisted of 245 Korean children (134 females and 111
males). Ninety percent of the participants lived in the United States for three years or more and 51 %
were born in Korea. Fifty-one percent spoke both Korean and English at home. In looking at the
relationship between the parenting style of Korean parents and their children’s academic achievement,
Kim and Rohner found that only 26 % of the parents fit with Baumrind’s typology. Thus only 26 % of
the parents in this study could be identified as authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive. The results
evidenced that children raised by authoritative and permissive fathers and mothers performed better
academically than children raised by authoritarian fathers and mothers. One might agree that children
with authoritative and permissive parents are more motivated to perform well in their studies.
Kim, Han and McCubin (2007) who found that Asian American parents tend to have both authoritarian
and authoritative parenting styles because they are aware that mixing both parenting styles will increase
their children’s success at school, lead to lower stress levels and to fewer externalizing behavior
problems. So, sometimes Asian parents are responsive to their children and other time they are not
responsive. It is believed that the parents may allow their children to be independent and to have their
own choice in many areas of their life, however, these parents may not compromise in the area of
studying and academics where Asian American parents discipline their children to perform better at
school (Pong, Hao, & Gardner, 2005). One might say that Asian American parents can be more
authoritative to show their support and concern to their children which may help develop affirmative

well-being among their children. However, at the same time they may control and be strict in
disciplining their children, especially to ensure their children excel in studies. In fact, Jackson-Newsom,
Buchanan, and McDonald (2008) in their study of parental control among Asian American parents found
that Asian American children were used to being controlled by their parents because they were already
familiar with this type of parenting. Therefore, in many studies, most researchers found that Asian
American parents can be authoritative at one point (where they show concern to their children), and on
the other hand, Asian American parents may exhibit authoritarian parenting especially when related to
academic purposes where they want to ensure that their children focus on academics.
It is believed that parenting style among Asian American parents derived from their value and norms
from their original country that are stricter and firm in disciplining their children. In addition, Van
Campen & Russell (2010) support idea and found that Asian Americans believe that control is not only
important in parenting but it is a key role for parents, where control is the way parents protect their
children and not to control their freedom. In fact, Asian American children do not blame their parents
from behave firm to them. One might say that, in Asian American culture, parents regulate children’s
behavior and support them in a different way than other group from different ethnicity by mixing two
components in their parenting style: control and acceptance.
However, other studies found that not all Asian American children received both authoritative and
authoritarian parenting from their parents as what found by Park, Kim, Chiang and Ju (2010) and Chao
(2001) in their study that parents in both studies mostly exhibited authoritarian parenting. Park, Kim,
Chiang and Ju (2010) examined the relation between perceived parenting style and family conflict
among Asian American college students. There were 149 Asian American students from the west coast
who participated in this study. They came from different Asian ethnicities such as Chinese, Filipino,
Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese. The instruments used in this study were the Parental Authority
Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991), Asian Values Scales-Revised (AVS-R) (Kim & Hong, 2004), the
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) (Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004), and
the Asian American Family Conflicts Scale (AAFCS) (Lee, Choe, Kim & Ngo, 2000).
The results indicated that parents scored higher on authoritarian style than on authoritative and
permissive styles (Park et al., 2010). This result was consistent with a previous study conducted by Chao
(2001) that Asian American students who were born either in the United States or in their country of
origin received authoritarian parenting style from their parents. Furthermore, students from authoritarian
homes exhibited greater stress and more disagreement with their families suggesting increased conflict
among family members. One might say that in one Asian American home, the parents may exhibit both
authoritative and authoritarian parenting, while other Asian American parents only exhibited one style
which is authoritarian parenting. The researcher will investigate if the sample in this study might receive
consistent parenting from their parents.
In the same study Park et al. (2010) found that students from authoritative homes have fewer
psychological problems such as stress, anxiety, and fewer disagreements with their parents suggesting
less conflict with family members. They revealed that these beneficial outcomes also were demonstrated
in children from permissive homes. One might say that families who exhibited authoritative and
permissive parenting styles are more effective in decreasing conflict with their children when compared
to families who practice an authoritarian parenting style.
In general, the research on parenting styles, parenting cross-culturally, and children’s emotions and
behaviors indicate that the different parenting styles found in the different cultural backgrounds

highlighted in this manuscript affect the psychological development of children. Supple and Small
(2006) found that authoritative parenting increases self-esteem among European children. While for
African American ethnic group which mostly displayed authoritarian parenting, the self-esteem among
the children might decrease. In addition, Deater Deckard, Bates, Dodge, and Pettit (1996) found that
African American children’s behavior are more aggressive when their parents exhibited authoritarian
parenting. Furthermore, some researchers reported that Asian American parents are more authoritarian to
their children which cause stress among the children (Park et al., 2010). In contrast, while African
American and Asian American children experience ill-being when they have parents with authoritarian
parenting, Middle Eastern researchers such as Dwairy (2008) found that most Middle Eastern children
respond positively to authoritarian parenting and may exhibit lower depression.
Parenting style and the relationship between parents and children has been derived from the Western
culture and beliefs, especially from the United States (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Buri, 1991). Culture and
beliefs inform people about the role of parents and what the relationship between parents and children
should be. From cross-cultural parenting studies, one may notice that parenting style may get influenced
by one’s culture and belief which might be slightly different from the original parenting framework
introduced by western scholars. For example, Chinese American children received lower warmth
differently from children in Western culture. The display of caring and support between these two ethnic
groups is different because according to Van Campen and Russell (2010), Asian American parents show
care to their children differently from European American parents.
Muslim Parenting & Its Effect on Children
Much of the literature on parenting across cultures has been conducted among non-Muslim populations,
and this gap results in a poor understanding of Muslim parenting practices and effectiveness (Whiteside-
Mansell, Bradley & McKelvey, 2009; Wissink, Dekovic, & Meijer, 2006). However, there are some
studies that use Muslims as the sample. These will be elaborated in this section.
A study by Assadi, Zokaei, Kaviani, Mohammadi, and Ghaeli (2007) looked at the effect of socio-
cultural context and parenting style on academic achievement among Iranian children. There were 240
13 year old Iranian children who participated in the study. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri,
1991) was used. Demographic information included mother’s education, birthplace, and household size.
Students’ grades were collected from school. The results revealed that wealthy and educated families
were more authoritative. The study found that children whose parents have an authoritative parenting
style have higher academic achievement than children raised by authoritarian parents with a lower
income. In other words, children raised by authoritative parents performed better at school.
A study by Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, and Farah (2006b) examined the influence of parenting on Arab
children, family connectedness, and adolescents’ wellbeing. The study had 2893 participants; 1712 were
females and 1181 were males in eight Arab countries. They used the Psychological State Scale
(Hamuda& Imam, 1996), the Multigenerational Scale, and the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri,
1991). The results indicated that children who had authoritative parenting showed greater connectedness
with the family than the other three styles. From this finding one might conclude that some Muslim
families developing strong relationships with other family members. There is no study that investigates
the reason why some Muslim families do not have close relationships with their family members;
however, based on the researcher’s knowledge, the reason might be because the parents are busy with
their career and business that make them give priority to themselves and be individualistic and have
limited time to be with other family members. Therefore, children who come from authoritative families

tend to have strong connections with their family members and exhibited less emotional and behavioral
problems than family members from the other three styles.
However, Dwairy in (2008) contradicted this finding when he found that some Arab Muslim families
who use authoritarian parenting had fewer emotional and behavioral problems. His study, conducted
using Palestinian-Arab children in Israel, showed that those children who have higher self-worth and
less depression, have less stress, and fewer misconduct behaviors are those children who received
authoritarian parenting. Dwairy (2008) did not stand alone as other researchers have also found that
authoritarian parenting styles were related to psychological well-being among Arab and Turkish children
(Dwairy, 2004a;Dwairy&Menshar, 2006; Dwairy, Achoui, Abourserie, Farah et al., 2006; Kagitcibasi,
2005). The contradictory findings from the above studies might have a similar reason to the
contradictory finding reported by Baumrind (1971). Baumrind’s original study (1971) on racially
integrated participants (Caucasian, African American, Jewish) in Berkeley found that 23% of the
participants could not be categorized by any of her types and had to be eliminated. Most probably this
was because the parenting style questionnaire, which was developed in a Western country was
administered to participants from different background that have specific meaning of behavior and this
caused differences in interpretation (Steward & Bond, 2002).
A recent study conducted by Zarnaghash and Samani, (2010) observed the relationship between
parenting and shyness among Iranian children. This study used 115 male and 82 female children.
Researchers found that children who lived in authoritarian homes showed higher rates of shyness than
those from authoritative homes, suggesting that with these children authoritarian parenting may have led
to more emotional problems such as low self-esteem and self-confidence. The study also examined the
link between parenting styles and self-esteem where Zarnaghash and Samani (2010) found that Iranian
children who exhibited high self-esteem exhibited low shyness and lived in authoritative homes
compared to children from authoritarian homes. Children in authoritative homes showed more
psychological adaptation, higher social efficiency, and higher motivation than children in authoritarian
homes. In addition, they had lower levels of shyness compared to other children from homes with other
parenting styles. One might say that authoritatively raised children are less shy which helps them
experience fewer emotional problems because they are more extroverted which may lend them the
ability to have more friends than other children.
Based on the studies of Muslim parenting and child outcomes cited above, one can see that there is
inconsistency in the relationship between parenting style and children’s emotional and behavioral
problems in Muslim families. One explanation for this inconsistency may be that even though the
research was conducted on Middle Eastern participants their values and norms might be different. Some
of the participants live in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran which may suggest that the interpretation of
children’s emotional and behavioral problems may differ across countries even if the religion is the same
in these three countries. Therefore, in this study the researcher is interested in looking at the influence of
ethnic group on children’s emotions and behavior while holding religion constant.
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The way and manner children are brought up is reckoned to be very essential to the development of the
growing child. This underscores assertion that parenting is an important determinant which affects the
whole child. The way parents take care of their children impacts on the latter’s personality development

and their ways of interacting with social and close relations. This role is very influential in children’s
development. Child development psychologists have particularly paid attention to this phenomenon and
many studies have been conducted to ascertain the veracity of the issue. Most of these studies mainly
investigated the influence of parenting styles on children’s academic performance at school. The
findings of the studies have been consistent to suggest that authoritative parenting style correlates with
good academic performance. There is, however, a dearth of data on the influence of parenting styles on
students’ social behavior which is considered a non-academic gain. Existing studies have mainly
assessed the influence of parenting styles on the academic trajectory of students’ learning outcomes
virtually oblivious of students’ social development. Meanwhile, the development of competent social
skills of students is an objective of education. Students who go through formal education are expected to
be competent both academically and socially. Given the apparent significance of being socially
competent at school and at the world of work, it was deemed worthwhile investigating the influence of
parenting style on children’s sociability. The focus of the study, therefore, was on the role of parenting
style in the social development of the adolescent child. Intrinsically, the research sought empirical-based
evidence on the relationship between parenting styles and child’s social development since there is
dearth of data to that effect.
3.2 RESEARCH OBEJCTIVE
The study intended to unearth how parents’ impact on children’s development with the following
objectives: (i) investigate the dominant parenting styles of parents in the study area, and (ii) ascertain the
relationship between parenting styles and children’s social competence.
3.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Ho: There is no relationship between parenting styles and children’s social competence
3.4 RESEACH DESIGN AND SURVEY DESIGN
• Research approach would be based on the qualitative and quantitative section. Here, the data and
information gathered would be in moreover in the form of text, comments or numeric value. We
have to screen all the collected data and information and scratch out the required information out of
that.
• Here, we must rely on the information, comments and data provided by the parents and previous
books, journals and web-information.
• The data would be gathered and distributed in form of text and numeric only and put at the required
stages.
• The survey would be started by preparing a concrete questionnaire and getting that filled from the
parents.
• 3.5 SAMPLING METHOD
• Here, in this case, the information can be extracted from the parents having kids less than or equal to
5 years old.
• The Sample will be chosen out of the different groups of parents existing in different area and
occupation.
• The respondents will be contacted at their places.
• There isa total of 50 pair of couple respondents.
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS
The Data would be analyzed from the texts, numeric information provided by the parents and samples.

This information would be segregated as per the requirement and the concrete information will be
distributed according to the required heads.
• Primary Data – The data would be collected from the questionnaire filled in by the respondents and
information collected by personal interview.
• Secondary Data – The data would be collected from the earlier Journals, and data collected from the
designated authorities written about child development.
The data would be moreover in the form of numeric value of text information, so that must be converted
into the presentable or graphical form as per the requirement of the project.
3.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Historical research
It generates descriptions & sometimes attempted explanations, of conditions, situations and events that
have occurred in the past. For Example, A study that documents the evolution of teacher training
program since the turn of century, with the aim of explaining the historical origins of the content and
processes of current programs (Postlethwaite, 2005)
Here, in this study, this methodology cannot solve the problem because, the issues studied here is Effect
of Parenting on Child development, and the study has to be done on the basis of future prospects.
Descriptive research
It provides information about conditions, situations and events that occur in the present. For example, a
survey of the physical conditions of a school building to establish a descriptive profile of the facilities
that exist in a typical school. (Postlethwaite, 2005)
This is a very elaborative and correct kind of research method, where we not only rely on past trends and
studies but also can observe the current studies and current concepts.
Correlation research
It involves the search for relationship between variables using various measures of statistical association.
For example, an investigation of the relationship between teachers’ satisfaction with their job and
various factors describing the provision and quality of teacher housing, salaries, leave entitlements, and
the availability of classroom supplies. (Postlethwaite, 2005)
Correlation research method makes relationship between two variables. And our study does not satisfy
this methodology because we are studying only about the Effect of parenting on child development. In
case we are studying the trend of two different motivational tools and comparing the trends of both, then
this kind of study would be suitable.
Causal research
It aims to suggest causal linkages between variables by observing existing phenomena and then
searching back through available data in order to try to identify plausible causal relationships. For
example, a study of factorsrelated to student ‘drop out’ from secondary school using data obtained from
school records over the past decade. (Postlethwaite, 2005)
Our study regarding “Effect of parenting on child development” does not satisfy this kind of research
methodology because, this study is completely depended on the factual data and theories, and casual
method simply solves the problems which have been already almost solved. It means, this method is
suitable when you already know the results but you simply need any fact to support that.
Experimental research
It is used in settings where variables defining one or more “causes” can be manipulated in a systematic
fashion in order to discern “effects” on other variables. For Example, an investigation of the

effectiveness of two new textbooks using random assignment of teachers and students of three groups –
two groups for each of the new textbooks, and one group as a ‘control’ group to use the existing
textbook. (Postlethwaite, 2005)
Experimental research methodology is suitable where we completely study any field or study which is
altogether virgin and has not been touched earlier. And the researcher must make various experiments to
come out with one result. Here, we are studying a field where we are moreover relied on the persons and
information which already existed in this field.
Case study research
It generally refers to two distinct research approaches. The first consist of and in depth of a particular
student, classroom or school with the aim of producing a nuanced description of pervading cultural
setting that affects education, and an account of the interactions that take place between students and
other relevant persons. For example, an in-depth exploration of the patterns of friendship between
students in a single class, the second approach to case study research involves the application of
qualitative research methods to non-probability samples-which provide results that are not necessarily
designed to generalizable to wider populations. For example, a survey of the reading achievements of
the students in one rural region of a particular country (Postlethwaite, 2005)
Case study research more over focus on the past data and past information, where we study a case,
which is almost similar to our current problem or study so, as such we are not dealing with such kind of
study or case, we are collecting desecrated information from different places and gathering at one
common place to come out on one judgement.
Ethnographic research
It usually consists of a description of events that occur within the life of a group- with reference to the
interaction of individuals in the context of socio cultural norms, rituals and beliefs shared by the group.
The researcher generally participates in some part of the normal life of the group and uses what he or she
learns from his participation to understand the interactions between group members. For example, a
detailed account of the daily tasks and interactions encountered by a school principal using observations
gathered by a researcher who is placed in the position of “Principal’s Assistant” in order to become fully
involved in the daily life of the school. (Postlethwaite, 2005)
This type of method suffices the kind the research which is not based on data and facts but on the social
and cultural behaviour of the people. For example, to understand the customers’ purchasing behaviour
etc., so, our study does not suit this method.
Research and development research
It differs from the above types of research in that, rather than bringing new information to light, it
focuses on the interaction between research and the production and evaluation of a new product. This
type of research can be ‘formative’. For example, an investigation of teachers’ reactions to the various
drafts and redrafts of a new mathematics teaching kit, with the information gathered at each stage being
used to improve each stage of the drafting process. Alternatively, it can be used summative. For
example, a comparison of the mathematics achievements of students exposed to anew mathematics
teaching kit in comparison with students exposed to the established mathematics curriculum.
(Postlethwaite, 2005)
Well, this kind of method itself defines that it is not suitable for our study, which we are doing on
“Effect of parenting on child development”.

So, finally, from all the above mentioned research methodology, we reached the point that, the current
study “Effect of parenting on child development” satisfies the Descriptive research method. Because
here we are supposed to deal with the information and data which is based on past facts and figures and
at the same moment current judgement and studies.
3.8 RESEARCH DESIGN
Phase I- Exploratory work
Exploratory information has been collected from the interviews (mentioned in various journals) of
various senior officials related to child development.
Phase II-Descriptive research
Descriptive study is done from the various journals, websites & from the books of the authors, who have
specifically written about child development and different parenting style.
Research Type: Descriptive
CHAPTER 4- RESULT & DISCUSSIONS

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS
We have used survey to understand the effect of parenting on kids. We have requested 50 couples to fill
up the survey questionnaire whose kid(s) is less than five year old.
1. Does your child look at you when you talk to him/her?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 34
Sometimes 10
Rarely or never 6
12%
20%
68%
Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely
Above mentioned table and graph indicates 68% of the respondents stated that, their child make direct
eye contact most of the time with them while talking to them whereas 20% of the respondents states that,
their child look at them while talking only sometimes whereas 12% of the respondents states that, their

child never or rarely make any eye contact with them while talking to them, it means this is the senior
matter or concern which need to be corrected.
2. Does your cling to you more than you expect?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 30
Sometimes 16
Rarely or never 4
8%
60
32 %
Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely
60 % of respondent’s states that, their child hugs and clings most of the time beyond their expectations,
whereas 32 % of the respondents states that, this happens only sometimes and lastly 8% of respondents
states that, they have faced this situation very rarely or never with their child.
3. When your child is upset, can you calm down him/her in 15 minutes?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 44
Sometimes 3
Rarely or never 3
6%
6%
88%
Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

The table and graph indicates 88% of the respondents could calm down their child in less than 15
minutes, whereas 6% of the respondents states that, they can do such thing only sometimes and lastly
other 6% of the respondents states that, they are almost unable to stop their child crying for even 25 to
30 minutes.
4. Does your child cry, scream or have tantrums for long periods of time?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 13
Sometimes 24
Rarely or never 13
26% 26%
48%
Above mentioned table and graph indicates that, 26% of respondents states that, they feel most of their
child screams and throw tantrums for longer time, whereas 48% of the respondents states that this
happens sometimes with their children and lastly 26% of the respondents states that, they have never or
rarely bear this situation with their child.
5. Is your child interested in things around him/her such as people, toys and tools?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 48
Sometimes 1
Rarely or never 1

2%
2%
96%
96% of the respondents states that, their child show proper interest in things around them such as people,
toys and tools etc. whereas 2% of the respondents feels this matter sometimes and lastly 2% of
respondents could rarely see any interest of their child in toys, tools etc. which is really a matter of
concern.
6. Does your child enjoy meal time with you?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 12
Sometimes 10
Rarely or never 28
24%
56%
20%

As per above mentioned table and graph, 24% of the respondents feel that their child enjoy meals with
them, whereas 20% of the respondents states that it happens sometimes that their child enjoy together
meal with them and lastly 56% of the respondents states that, their child rarely enjoy meals with them as
their children are more often interested towards packaged or fast food, which parents prohibit them to
eat.
7. Does your child do whatever you ask to do her/him?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 18
Sometimes 15
Rarely or never 17
34% 36%
30%
Above mentioned table and graph indicates that, 36% of the respondents states that their child do
whatever they ask to do them whereas 30% of the respondents states that, this matter happens only
sometimes when child is supposed to take any favor from parents and lastly 34% of the respondents
states that their child rarely do any such act which they ask them to do.
8. Does your child take proper sleep?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 40
Sometimes 7
Rarely or never 3

6%
14%
80%
The result indicates that, 80% of respondents feels that their child take proper sleep whereas 14% of the
respondents states that, sometimes their child’s sleep seems disturb and lastly 6% of the respondents
states that their child could not take proper sleep maybe because of disturbance in house etc.
9. Does your child speaks the words such as “I am happy”, “I don’t like this” or I am sad” etc.
when he/she feels so?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 6
Sometimes 11
Rarely or never 33
12%
22%
66%

The result indicates that, the child below five years are less expressive about their feelings and cannot
show their actual situation. Here, only 12% of the respondents’ states that their child can actually define
their mood to them whereas 22% of the respondents feels that they can only sometimes able to recognize
their child’s mood and lastly 66% of the respondents rarely or never show any such expression to their
parents.
10. Does your child seems active than other kids?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 13
Sometimes 17
Rarely or never 20
26%
40%
34%
The chart indicates that, 26% of the respondents states that their child is much active most of the time as
compared to other child, whereas 34% of the respondent states that activeness of their child is just as
average kid and lastly 40% of the respondents states that their child is average active or below active as
compared to other child and they could see overactive activities of their child rarely.
11. Can your child clearly explains you, what he/she wants?
Particulars Results
Most of the Time 7
Sometimes 14
Rarely or never 29

14%
58% 28%
As mentioned, 14% of the respondents states that, their child can clearly explain regarding their wants
and needs whereas 28% of the respondents states that, the child can explain their desire clearly only
sometimes and lastly 58% of the respondents states that, they can relate understand the requirement of
their child at very first instance.
12. Does your child like to explore new places etc.?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 10
Sometimes 22
Rarely or never 18
20%
36%
44%

The above mentioned table and graph indicates that, child of 20% of the couples likes most often to
explore new places whereas 44% of the respondents feel same only for sometimes and lastly 36% of the
respondents rarely noticed that their child is anywhere interested in exploring new places of things.
13. Does your child follows rules at home, schools etc.?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 3
Sometimes 12
Rarely or never 35
6%
24%
70%
The graph indicates that, there are very less percentage of child who actually follows rules and
regulations whereas 24% of the respondents states that, their child follows rules only sometimes and
lastly 70% of the respondents states that they never saw their child following rules and regulations.
14. Does your child like to play with other children?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 43
Sometimes 6
Rarely or never 1

2%
12%
86%
As per above mentioned table and graph, 86% of the respondents states that, their children likes to play
with other kids most of the time, in fact every time whereas only 12% of the respondents states that their
children like to play with other children only sometimes and lastly 2% of the respondents states that their
children rarely or never like to play with other children and they try to keep more often aloof from other
children.
15. Do other children like to play with your child?

Particulars Results
Most of the Time 50
Sometimes 0
Rarely or never 0

As per all the respondents, other children likes very much to play with their kids as they find that, their
kids are very much balanced and social with other children.
CHAPTER 5 –
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 FINDINGS
The findings of the study are as below:
• 68% of the respondents stated that, their child make direct eye contact most of the time with them
while taking to them whereas 20% of the respondents states that, their child look at them while
talking only sometimes whereas 12% of the respondents states that, their child never or rarely make
any eye contact with them while talking to them, it means this is the serious matter or concern which
need to be corrected.
• 60% of the respondents states that, their child hugs and clings most of the time beyond their
expectations, whereas 32% of the respondents states that, this happens only sometimes and lastly 8%
of the respondents states that, they have faced this situations very rarely and never with their child.
• 88% of the respondents could calm down their child in less than 15 minutes, whereas 6% of the
respondents states that, they can do such thing only sometimes and lastly other 6% of the
respondents’ states that, they are almost unable to stop their child crying for even 25 or 30 minutes.
• 26% of the respondents states that, they feel most of the time that their child screams and throw
tantrums for longer time, whereas 48% of the respondents states that this happens sometimes with
their children and lastly 26% of the respondents’ states that, they have never or rarely bear this
situation with their child.
• 96% of the respondents states that, their child show proper interest in things around them such as
people, toys and tools etc. whereas 2% of the respondents feels this matter sometimes and lastly 2%
of the respondents could rarely see any interest of their child in toys, tools etc. which is really a
matter of concern.
• 24% of the respondents feel that their child enjoy meals with them, whereas 20% of the respondents
states that it happens sometimes that their child enjoy together meal with them and lastly 56% of the
respondents states that, their child rarely enjoy meals with them as their children are more often
interested towards packaged or fast food, which parents prohibit them to eat.
• 36% of the respondents states that their child do whatever they ask to do them whereas 30% of the
respondents states that, this matter happens only sometimes when child is supposed to take any favor
from parents and lastly 34% of the respondents states that their child rarely do any such act which
they ask them to do.
• 80% of the respondents feels that their child take proper sleep whereas 14% of the respondents states
that, sometimes their child’s sleep seems disturb and lastly 6% of the respondents states that their
child could not take proper sleep maybe because of disturbance in house etc.
• 12% of the respondents’ states that their child can actually define their mood to them whereas 22%
of the respondents feels that they can only sometimes able to recognize their child’s mood and lastly
66% of the respondents rarely or never show any such expression to their parents.
• 26% of the respondents states that their child is much active most of the time as compared to other
child, whereas 34 % of the respondent states that activeness of their child is just as average kid and

lastly 40% of the respondents states that their child is either average active or below average active
as compared to other child and they could see overactive activities of their child rarely.
• 14% of the respondents states that, their child can clearly explain regarding their wants and needs
whereas 28% of the respondents states that, the child can explain their desire clearly only sometimes
and lastly 58% of the respondents states that, they can rarely understand the requirement of their
child at very first instance.
• Child of 20% of the couples likes most often to explore new places whereas 44% of the respondents
feel same only for sometimes and lastly 36% of the respondents rarely noticed that their child is
anywhere interested in exploring new places of things.
• There are very less percentage of child who actually follows rules and regulations whereas 24% of
the respondents states that, their child follow rules only sometimes and lastly 70% of the respondents
states that they never saw their child following rules and regulations.
• 86% of the respondents states that, their children likes to play with other kids most of the time, in
fact every time whereas only 12% of the respondents states that their children like to play with other
children only sometimes and lastly 2% of the respondents states that their children rarely or never
like to play with other children and they try to keep more often aloof from other children.
• 100% respondents, other children likes very much to play with their kids as they find that, their kids
are very much balanced and social with other children.
5.2 DISCUSSIONS
Parenting styles is all about how to raise children. It includes biological, emotional, spiritual and social
support by parents. The long-term outcomes of parenting style are actually results of parent’s aspiration
on idealism of socialization aims determined by parents. In general it could be that many parents have
high aspirations on their children, wanting everything good happen to them but other factors also
influenced the way they make themselves responsible or irresponsible such as cultural factor and SES.
The present research shows that both mothers and fathers employed authoritative style stronger to
daughters and lower to their sons and at the same time employed more authoritarian style to their boys
and less authoritarian to their daughters. Both mothers and fathers do not realize that in a way they are
giving better attention to their daughters as compared to their sons. Working mothers give more attention
to their girls rather than boys. Mothers also spending time more with girls than boys when not working.
It seems that parents especially mothers try to compensate missing hour when working more with girls
than boys. For better long-term outcomes, parents should give equal attention to all children regardless
their gender.
Parenting styles are determined by parents “SES background, working conditions and child sex. More
educated and parents who belong to middle-class background employed better and effective parenting
style or authoritative style. In contrast, less educated parents or lower-income parents employed harsh or
authoritarian style stronger to their children as compared to more advantaged children who come from
better family and home background. Similar finding are recorded by other researchers. Poor work
conditions such as busy day, high work load, higher job demands (e.g. time pressure and performance
expectations) are related to poor parenting behavior. Fluctuations in job stressors experienced by male
air traffic controllers related to father’s withdrawal (e.g. fewer high involvement interactions, less
monitoring of children’s school work) and less effort to help children with their work. Heavy workloads
by mothers are significantly related to less involvement and more withdrawal from children. Although
this behaviour may be an adaptive response to allow parents who experience stress as result of job

conditions to regain their normal level of emotional and psychological functioning, stressful conditions
of work may prompt withdrawal, hostile or punitive parent-child interactions.
Direct effects of parenting styles on children behaviour and school achievement are clearly shown in the
present study. Two types of parenting styles that appeared to be significant in relation to children
behaviour and school achievement are authoritarian and authoritative. Mothers” and fathers” effects are
quite similar, positive effects for authoritative and negative effects for authoritarian. However, effects of
fathers” authoritarian style are stronger than mothers” on both children behaviour and school
achievement indicating that fathers” overall are more authoritarian than mothers. Different emphasis on
child sex in terms of parenting styles given different outcomes to children behaviour and school
achievement among children in the study. Since girls are given better attention through better parenting
style (authoritative), they performed better in classroom than boys. Whether parents realize or not about
this trend this issue needs to be investigated when looking at the reasons why girls performed better in
public examinations in Malaysia and girls later on becomes majority in the entire public universities in
Malaysia. Overall the present research findings on effects of parenting styles on children behavior and
school achievement are similar to other findings conducted elsewhere in the world as discussed.
5.3 SUGGESTIONS
The influence of these extra familial factors suggests that it is more accurate to state that parental
qualities contribute to a child’s psychological profile, rather than to conclude thatfamily conditions
determine a particular outcome. An infant’s secure attachment to parent does not guarantee a benevolent
outcome or protect a child against psychological problems later in life, but the secure attachment
probably constraints the likelihood of producing an adult who is homeless. Physicians are familiar with
this form of restrained conclusion. Chronic middle ear infection during the first 2 years of life does not
always lead to language delay, but it can make a small contribution to that phenomenon.
Eleanor Maccoby, a colleague and a distinguished developmental psychologist, wrote that the
contribution of parental practices to children’s personality cannot be viewed in isolation. Each parental
behavior or parental personality trait is part of a complex system that in some respects is unique to each
parent-child relationship.
The study unveiled that a disproportionate chunk of parents of the children adopt authoritative style of
parenting by showing responsiveness, warmth and caring behaviour at home. In this time and age,
parents are supposed to treat their kids as rational beings to enable them to come out of themselves.
Children of such parents may be able to avoid negative peer influence and risky behaviours as they
would confide in the parents as well as discussing their problems and plans with them. The study also
revealed a relationship parenting styles and children’s sociability. Children of authoritative parents were
graded as socially competent while those of authoritarian parents were rated socially incompetent.
Implicit in this finding is that, the way and manner children are brought up affect their social
development. The results of the relationship between parenting style and social behaviour of children
have added to the repertoire of existing studies that have found positive and significant relationship
between parenting style and children’s academic achievement. The parenting behaviours and activities
that children experience at home have a great impact on their conduct and learning at school. It is
plausible to aver that parenting styles have influence on children’s total development. These amply
demonstrate that parents can have a great impact on their children’s educational outcomes (Miki, 2008)
and that parenting styles and parenting practices shape children’s development.

It is, therefore, necessary for parents to be well aware of the negative and positive impacts of the various
parenting styles on students’ academic and non-academic gains. Parents ought to be educated on the
importance of adopting the parenting style that would aid in promoting their children’s development.
Educators and counselors could use fora like PTA meetings, Speech and Prize Giving Days, Open Days
and Anniversaries to educate parents on the influence of parenting styles on children’s development.
Through this, educators would help parents nurture the virtuous child for the millennium. The child who
would possess not only the knowledge and competencies needed for societal progress and development
but also the cherished values and attitudes which are pre-requisite for social cohesion and integration,
and national development.
5.4 CONCLUSIONS
Society often assumed that parenting came naturally and parents just knew what to do when it came to
discipline, nurturing, toilet training, esteem building and so forth. This perception is slowly changing.
Today’s parents are quicker to acknowledge that they don’t always have the answers or that they may
not want to raise their children as they were raised. Societal changes have made it more difficult to rely
on parenting techniques from the past. The pace of social change is increasing as India open up to
western influences. The rapid pace at which these changes occur, leave children facing issues their
parents never dreamed of. The root cause of most of the mental health problems of children and
adolescents are related with parenting styles adopted in their families. So the parents should be more
aware of the different parenting styles and their impact on child development. Despite of the high
importance of this issue, research on parenting in India is sparse (Sharma, 2003).
The impact on social change on childhood and parenting styles needs to be further examined. Nowadays
the parenting styles are different from those early existed ones. At early times the lower and working
class parents tend to stress obedience and respect for authority, be more restrictive and authoritarian,
more frequently using power assertive discipline and show less warmth and affection. Meanwhile the
upper and middle class followed the authoritative or permissive parenting styles. However, the modern
families are giving more freedom and relaxed discipline practices to their children irrespective of their
income.
Parenting style overlap depending upon a number of factors, such as the number of children, the unique
personalities of the parents and child, parents’ attitudes and the structure of the family (Schwartz and
Scott, 1994). The parenting style needs change according to the societal changes. Awareness regarding
parenting style is very important in modern parenting. Even most of the functions of families have been
taken over by other societal institutions; parents remain the major socializers of their children. Thus their
style of parenting has important consequences for society.
Parenting style is an important factor in child development. Socio-emotional development of the child is
influenced by the type of parenting style used in families. Parents, teachers and the mental health
professionals must give more importance to the parenting styles and the society has to sort out steps to
aware the parents regarding its importance.
The present research study emphasizes it scope on effects of parenting styles on children development.
Two aspects of development investigated are children behavior and cognitive development or school
achievement. Three types of parenting styles tested are based on parenting styles’ typology:
authoritarian, authoritative and permissive. In general fathers and mothers employed better parenting
style(authoritative) to girls as compared to boys. Fathers and mothers also are found to be more
authoritarian to their boys. Similar to other research conducted in other countries such as America and

Europe, authoritarian style gives negative effects on children behavior to and school environment and on
the other hand, authoritative style gives positive effects on children development. Since girls are given
better attention by both mothers and fathers, they behave well in classroom and have higher or better
achievement.

Effects of Various Parenting Style On Children at Different Age Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Various Parenting Style On Children at Different Age Group

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Effects of Various Parenting Style On Children at Different Age Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)

E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: www.ijfmr.com ● Email: editor@ijfmr.com

Effects of various Parenting Style on children at

Keywords: Parenting Styles, authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, neglectful, psychological well

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 1

Patterns of Parenting Styles

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 2

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 3

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 4

income living and their effects on parenting.

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 5

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 6

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 7

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 8

CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF LITERATURE

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 9

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 10

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 11

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 12

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 13

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 14

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 15

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 16

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 17

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 18

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 19

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 20

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 21

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 22

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 23

CHAPTER 4- RESULT & DISCUSSIONS

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 24

2. Does your cling to you more than you expect?

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 25

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 26

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

6. Does your child enjoy meal time with you?

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 27

7. Does your child do whatever you ask to do her/him?

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

8. Does your child take proper sleep?

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 28

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 29

10. Does your child seems active than other kids?

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 30

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

12. Does your child like to explore new places etc.?

Most of the Time Sometimes Rarely or never

IJFMR240631572 Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024 31

13. Does your child follows rules at home, schools etc.?