Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Practices ...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 1997, 21 (4), 855–873

Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Practices and Social and School Performance in Chinese Children Xinyin Chen University of Western Ontario, Canada

Qi Dong and Hong Zhou Beijing Normal University, People’s Republic of China The purpose of the study was to examine the relations between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles and social and school adjustment in Chinese children. A sample of second grade children, aged eight years, and their parents in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, participated in this study. The children were group administered a peer assessment measure of social behaviour and a sociometric nomination measure. Teachers completed a rating scale on school-related social competence and problems for each child. Data concerning child-rearing practices were obtained from parents. In addition, information on children’s academic and social competence was obtained from school records. It was found that authoritarian parenting was associated positively with aggression and negatively with peer acceptance, sociability-competence, distinguished studentship and school academic achievement. In contrast, parental authoritative style was associated positively with indices of social and school adjustment and negatively with adjustment problems. The results indicated that, inconsistent with the argument in the literature (e.g. Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992), authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices were relevant to social and academic performance in Chinese children.

One of the most inuential conceptual analyses on parenting is Baumrind’s systematic discussion on the effects of parental affect and control on the Requests for reprints should be sent to Xinyin Chen, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a grant from the State Education Commission of P.R. China. We would like to thank Yong Chen, Haoli Xin, and Yan Zhou, who aided in the collection, coding and entry of data, and those children and their parents in Beijing, P.R. China, who participated in this study. q 1997 The International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development

856

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

child (1967, 1971). According to Baumrind, authoritative parenting, consisting of parental responsive attitudes and adequate control, optimally facilitates the development of child competent behaviour. This parenting style is typically reected by parents’ frequent employment of inductive and supportive techniques in child rearing. It has been found in the West that inductive reasoning and rational guidance predict children’s prosocial and adaptive behaviour (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). This may be because, when parents are sensitive to the child’s needs and abilities and parental expectations and requests are reasonable and appropriate for the child, he/she is likely to accept and follow parents’ suggestions and advice. In addition, authoritative parents’ nurturant and rational behaviour may serve as a model for the child (Bandura, 1977). In contrast, authoritarian parents are controlling and rejecting of the child; they tend to use power-assertive, prohibitive, and punitive strategies and emphasise absolute obedience of the child. Because prohibition and power assertion are likely to be related to anxiety, fear, and frustration in children, it is not difcult to understand that children of authoritarian parents tend to be self-oriented and to have low self-esteem and negative attitudes towards the world (e.g. Coopersmith, 1967; Lempers, ClarkLempers, & Simons, 1989; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992), which, in turn, may contribute to the development of deviant behaviours and adjustment problems (e.g. Eisenberg & Murphy, 1995; Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burt, 1992; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). Although the role of parental behaviour may be appreciated in most societies (Harkness & Super, 1995; Whiting & Edward, 1988), it remains to be examined whether the Western-based conceptualisation of parenting behaviour, such as authoritarian and authoritative practices, can be generalised to other cultures. For example, several researchers have recently argued that parental authoritativeness and authoritarianism in Chinese culture may have the meanings that are different from those typically found in Western cultures (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Ekblad, 1986; Steinberg et al., 1992; Wu, 1981). According to this argument, although controlling and authoritarian strategies have been found to be associated with child behavioural and adjustment problems in Western children (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987), it may be positively valued in the hierarchical collectivistic Chinese society and thus associated with adaptive outcomes in Chinese children (e.g. Chiu, 1987; Ekblad, 1986). As an evidence for this argument, it has been found consistently that Chinese parents are more controlling and authoritarian and less authoritative than North American parents (Chao, 1994; Dombusch et al., 1987; Ho, 1986; Kelley, 1992; Lin & Fu, 1990). However, Chinese children have been found to perform better than their

PARENTING PRACTICES AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

857

North American counterparts on academic achievement (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987; Stevenson et al., 1990). Nevertheless, there has been little empirical research extant that directly examines the links between parental authoritarian and authoritative styles and child adjustment in Chinese culture. The purpose of the present study was to examine the relations between authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social adjustment and academic achievement in Chinese children. To avoid potential confounding factors that might be involved in the use of immigrant Chinese samples in Western countries (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987), such as mixed cultural inuences and stress in adjustment to the new environment, a sample of elementary school children in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China, was selected for the study. Information on child-rearing practices, children’s academic achievement and learning problems, peer acceptance and rejection, and social functioning was obtained from parents, teachers, peers, and school administrative records. It may be true that, due to the emphasis on parental authority and the child’s obedience in traditional Chinese culture, Chinese parents are highly controlling and authoritarian, compared with Western parents (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Kelley, 1992; Lin & Fu, 1990). However, it may be misleading to suggest that parental authoritarianism has positive effects on social adjustment and academic achievement in Chinese children. In fact, parents in China are often encouraged to be controlling based on affectionate attitudes towards the child. What is really valued in Chinese culture is parental care, involvement, supervision, and encouragement of achievement (e.g. Chen, in press; Chen & Kaspar, in press; Ho, 1986). An ideal parent, particularly the mother, is often described as kindhearted and strict (ci-xiang and yan-ge in Mandarin), which is similar to authoritative, rather than authoritarian, approach. It may be true that authoritarian, power-assertive parenting is necessary, and thus adaptive, in dangerous societies or communities where violence and the risks of antisocial activities are relatively commonplace (Garcia Coll, Meyer, & Brillon, 1995; Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992), particularly from a short-term perspective. However, this is clearly not the case in China. Thus, regardless of cross-cultural differences between Chinese and North American parents in the average levels of authoritativeness and authoritarianism, we argue that the adaptational meanings of these parenting styles are similar to those typically found in the Western literature (e.g. Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Specically, given that coercive, power-assertive, and prohibitive strategies may lead to the child’s negative emotional and behavioural reactions such as fear, frustration and anger, we believe that authoritarian parenting may be associated with maladaptive social and academic development in Chinese children. In

858

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

contrast, as authoritative parenting provides explanation, guidance, and communication of affect, it may be associated with the child’s feelings of condence and security in the exploration of the world and positive parent-child relationships, which, in turn, may be associated with children’s social and scholastic competence. It is important to note that these arguments are not in contradiction with the ndings on diverse culturespecic forms and processes of parenting such as when and how parents care for children in China and other societies (see Bornstein, 1991, 1995; Chen & Kaspar, in press, for comprehensive reviews; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). It has been found that both academic achievement and the quality of peer relationships are signicant indices of school adjustment in Chinese and Western children (Chen, in press; Chen, Rubin, & Sun, 1992, Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Stevenson et al., 1990). Children who have academic difculties are likely to experience psychological problems such as negative self-perceptions of general self-worth and depression (Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995a, Fauber, Forehand, Long, Burke, & Faust, 1987; Kellam, Brown, Rubin, & Ensminger, 1983). Similarly, children who have difculties in peer acceptance may be “at risk” for maladaptive development such as school drop-out, delinquency, and psychopathology (Chen et al., 1995a, Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995b; Coie et al., 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987). Based on our speculations described earlier, we hypothesised that, inconsistent with the previous arguments concerning Chinese parenting practices (e.g. Ekblad, 1986; Steinberg et al., 1992), authoritative parenting style would be positively associated with school academic achievement and social status. In contrast, authoritarian parenting would be related to school difculties and peer rejection. Recent research on children’s social functioning has mainly focused on sociability, aggression-disruption, and shyness-inhibition (e.g. Morison, & Masten, 1991). Consistent with the Western results (e.g. Coie et al., 1990), sociable-prosocial behaviour has been found to be associated with peer acceptance, leadership and academic achievement, whereas aggressivedisruptive behaviour is associated with and predictive of adjustment problems including peer rejection and academic difculties in Chinese children (Chen et al., 1992, 1995b). Inconsistent with the Western literature (e.g. Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993) in which shy-inhibited behaviour has been considered socially incompetent, immature, and maladaptive, shyness-social inhibition is positively evaluated, reecting social maturity and understanding in Chinese culture (King & Bond, 1985); shy-sensitive children are accepted by peers and adjust well to the environment in China (Chen et al., 1992, 1995b). Therefore, we hypothesised that authoritative parenting would be associated positively with sociable-prosocial behaviour and shy-inhibited behaviour and negatively with aggression-disruption. We further hypothesised that authoritarian parenting would be associated


859

positively with aggression and negatively with sociability and shynessinhibition. Finally, it has been found that fathers and mothers may play different roles in child rearing (e.g. Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984; Parke, 1995). Thus, we examined the relations between parenting practices and child functioning separately for mothers and fathers. In addition, because the literature has indicated that the impact of socialisation practices on social and school performance may differ for boys and girls (e.g. Crouter, Manke, & McHale, 1995; Hart et al., 1992), the moderating effects of gender on the relations between parenting and child performance were also examined in this study.

METHOD Participants A total of 304 second-grade children (161 males and 143 females) attending two elementary schools that were randomly selected in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, participated in the study. The mean age of the children was 7 years, 11 months (SD 5 8 months). Complete data concerning child-rearing practices and family background were obtained from 263 mothers and 249 fathers. The children were from two kinds of families: (a) 63% of the children were from families in which parents were ordinary workers; most of these parents had an educational level of high school or below; (b) 37% of the children were from professional families in which one or both parents were teachers, doctors, engineers, or ofcials; their educational levels ranged from high school to university graduate. Due to the “one-child-per-family policy” that was implemented in the late 1970s, almost all children in China, particularly in urban areas, are “only” children. This has become an important feature of family and social conditions in China and thus represents an integral part of the sociocultural background. Consistently, 97% of the children had no siblings in our sample. Thirty-four percent of children lived in a family which consisted of three generations: grandparents, parents, and the child; and 66% of children were from nuclear families in which only parents and the child lived together. Finally, 96% of the children lived with both parents. About 2.5% of children had a single parent (usually mother) due to divorce or separation and the rest of the children lived with a single parent due to parental death or other events. These demographic data were virtually identical to those reported by the China State Statistics Bureau concerning urban population in China in 1990s (The People’s Daily, 12 October 1994). Thus, the sample was representative of school-aged children in urban China.

860

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

Procedure The children were group administered a peer assessment measure of social behaviour (The Revised Class Play; Masten, Morison, & Pelligrini, 1985) and a sociometric nomination measure. Teachers completed a measure concerning children’s school-related competence and problems (The Teacher Child Rating Scale; Hightower et al., 1986). Parents of the children in each class were invited to come to the school and requested to complete a set of “Parental Questionnaires”. The questionnaires included a measure of child-rearing practices and a survey of background information. Finally, information on children’s social achievement and academic achievement in Chinese and mathematics was obtained from school administrative records. The administration of all measures was carried out in May 1994, by a group of university teachers and graduate students in psychology, all of whom are Chinese. Schools in China act in loco parentis, and thus written parental permission was not obtained for the children. Nevertheless, the parents were aware that their children participated in the project.

Measures Child-rearing Beliefs and Practices. Parental beliefs and behaviours in child rearing were assessed by using a Chinese version of Block’s Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR; Block, 1981). There are 91 items in this measure that tap different types of parenting practices such as encouragement of independence, punishment, induction, emphasis on achievement, inhibition of affection, and emphasis on conformity. This measure has been used and proved appropriate in Chinese and many other cultures (e.g. Block, 1981; Lin & Fu, 1990; Mizuta, Zahn-Waxler, Cole, & Hiruma, 1996). On the basis of Baumrind’s (1971) and Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) paradigms, Kochanska, Kuczynski, and Radke-Yarrow (1989) have recently reconceptualised parenting patterns as reected by these items and derived the indices of authoritative and authoritarian styles. The authoritative parenting consists of a set of items describing rational guidance, inductive reasoning, encouragement of child independence, parent-child communication and emphasis on achievement (e.g. “I respect my child’s opinions and encourage him/her to express them”; “I encourage my child to be curious, to explore and question things”; “I talk it over and reason with my child when he/she misbehaves”). Authoritarian parenting consists of items describing physical punishment, verbal reprimands, power-assertive strategies, and discouragement of the child’s emotional expression and of verbal give-and-take between parent and child (e.g. “I do not allow my child to question my decisions”; “I believe physical punishment to be the best way of disciplining”; “I believe that scolding and criticism


861

make my child improve”). It has been found that the indexes of authoritative and authoritarian patterns are valid in predicting observed parental behaviours, parent-child interactions and the child’s social behaviours (Kochanska, 1990; Kochanska et al., 1989). Kochanska et al.’s approach in constructing authoritative and authoritarian patterns based on the CRPR items was adopted in some studies of parenting in Chinese and other cultures (e.g. Chao, 1994; Dekovic, Janssens, & Gerris, 1991). In keeping with the literature, this approach was also used in the present study. The original format of the CRPR is Q-sort. As recommended by other authors (Chao, 1994; Dekovic et al., 1991; Lin & Fu, 1990; Rickel & Biasatti, 1982), however, 5-point Likert-type scale was used in the present study in order to facilitate data collection. Parents were requested to rate each item in the CRPR on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 5 strongly disagree; 5 5 strongly agree). The measure was translated and back-translated to ensure comparability with the English versions. No evidence was found in a series of pilot studies that Chinese parents had difculty understanding the items in the measure. Exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses of the data in the Chinese sample indicated that authoritative and authoritarian items as identied by Kochanska (1990) clearly loaded on their corresponding factors. Thus, authoritative and authoritarian scores were computed by summing the items in each category, with higher scores indicating more authoritative or authoritarian parenting. The mean scores of authoritative and authoritarian patterns were 103.03 (SD 5 9.76) and 63.02 (SD 5 9.11), respectively for mothers, and 101.19 (SD 5 11.65) and 61.29 (SD 5 7.60), respectively for fathers. Nonsignicant differences were found between mothers and fathers in authoritative and authoritarian patterns. Internal consistencies for authoritative and authoritarian patterns were .85 and .75 respectively for mothers, and .89 and .78, respectively for fathers in the present study. Peer Assessments of Social Behaviour. Peer assessments of social behaviour were assessed using a Chinese version of the Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985). Consistent with the procedures outlined by Masten et al. (1985), during administration, each child was rst provided a booklet in which each of 30 behavioural descriptors (e.g. “Someone who is a good leader”) and the names of all students in the class were printed on each page. After the administrator read one behavioural descriptor, children were requested to nominate up to three classmates who could best play the role if they were to direct a Class Play. When all children in the class completed their nominations, they turned to the next item, until nominations for all 30 items were obtained. Subsequently, nominations received from all classmates were used to compute each item score for each child. The item scores were standardised within the class to adjust for differences in the

862

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

number of nominators. Factor analysis revealed three orthogonal factors in this measure: Sociability-leadership (e.g. “A person who everyone listens to”, “Somebody who makes new friends easily”), Aggression-disruption (e.g. “Someone who gets into a lot of ghts”, “Someone who picks on other kids”), and Shyness-sensitivity (e.g. “Someone who is very shy”, “Someone whose feelings are easily hurt”) (Chen et al., 1992). The measure has proved reliable and valid in Chinese children (Chen et al., 1992; Chen & Rubin, 1994). Sociometric Nominations. Children were asked to nominate three classmates with whom he/she most liked to be and three classmates with whom he/she least liked to be. The nominations received from all classmates were totalled and then standardised within each class to permit appropriate comparisons. The positive nominations received from peers provided an index of peer acceptance. The negative playmate nominations received from peers provided an index of peer rejection. Both positive and negative sociometric nominations were proven reliable in Chinese children (Chen et al., 1992). Following Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli’s procedure (1982), an index of peer sociometric preference, which indicates how well a child is liked by peers, was formed by subtracting negative nomination scores from the positive nomination scores. Teacher Ratings. In Chinese schools, one teacher is usually in charge of a class. This head instructor often teaches one major course, such as Chinese language or mathematics; he/she also takes care of the various political, social, administrative, and daily affairs and activities of the class. The head teacher usually instructs the same group of children over several years, thus, he/she is very familiar with the students. Following procedures outlined by Hightower et al. (1986), the head teacher in each class was asked to complete the Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS; Hightower et al., 1986) for each child in his/her class. Teachers were asked to rate, on a 5-point scale, how well each of the items described the child. The complete measure consists of two parts: (1) an assessment of elementary school children’s problem behaviours, and (2) an assessment of elementary children’s school competencies. Part I consists of 18 items describing problem behaviours. Consistent with the results of the original study (Hightower et al., 1986), three factors were identied: (1) Acting-out/aggression (e.g. “Disruptive in class”); (2) Shyness-Anxiety (e.g. “Shy, timid”), and (3) Learning Problems (“Having problems in learning academic subjects”). Part II of the T-CRS consists of 20 items concerning school-related competencies. The items in this part of the original measure involve four areas: (1) assertive social skills; (2) frustration tolerance; (3) task orientation; and (4) peer social skills (Hightower et al., 1986). Factor analyses revealed that the 20 items (e.g.


863

“Participates in class discussion”; “Is friendly toward peers”) represented a single factor. Thus, for purposes of the present study, we used only a global score, which we referred to as school social competence. The T-CRS has proved reliable and valid in Chinese children (Chen & Rubin, 1994). Because the items for peer-assessed sociability-leadership and teacherassessed school-related social competence virtually reected the same construct, to reduce overlap and redundancy in analyses, peer and teacher assessment scores were standardised and then aggregated to form a single index of sociability-competence. Similarly, peer and teacher assessments on aggression and shyness were aggregated to form a single index of the corresponding construct.1 School Academic Achievement. Information concerning academic achievement in Chinese and mathematics was obtained for all participants from the school records. The scores of academic achievement were based on two nal term examinations that were conducted before and after the collection of other data (February and July 1994). Maximum scores for Chinese and mathematics were 100; a test score of 60 is usually considered the cut-off between a pass and a failure. The scores based on the two examinations were summed to form a single index of academic achievement in Chinese and mathematics. Academic achievement in Chinese and mathematics were signicantly correlated with each other (r 5 .55, P , .001) and with teacher-rated learning problems (rs 5 2 .40 and 2 .45, P , .001, respectively). Thus, a single index of school achievement was formed by aggregating standardised academic achievement scores with reversed standardised learning problems scores. Distinguished Studentship. There is usually an evaluation of each student by the end of each academic year in Chinese schools. Students who are judged by classmates and teachers to be morally “good” as well as intellectually and physically competent, may be nominated for the school or municipal award of “distinguished student in three areas” (san hao xue sheng, in Mandarin). There are different levels of “distinguished student”, from the class level, to the school level, to the district level, and nally to the municipal level. Once approved by the school, the District Educational Bureau, or the Municipal Educational Bureau, the students who obtain the status of “distinguished student” are given awards in collective meetings. The achievement of this honour is recorded in the student le and a certicate of honourship is delivered to the family. “Distinguished The correlations between teacher ratings and peer assessments were .55, P , .001, on sociability, .63, P, , .001, on aggression, and .15, P , .01, on shyness. The patterns of relations between teacher and peer assessments of social functioning and parenting styles were virtually identical. 1

864

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

studentship” was coded as follows: students who did not receive any awards in the past year received a score of zero; students who received the award at the class level over the past year received a score of 1; and students who received the award beyond the class level received a score of 2. The mean score of this variable was .50 (SD 5 .61).

RESULTS Intercorrelations among child social and school variables are presented in Table 1. The results indicated that peer sociometric preference, sociabilitycompetence, distinguished studentship and academic achievement were positively correlated. These variables were negatively correlated with aggression-disruption. Shyness was positively correlated with peer preference and sociability-competence. The magnitudes of the correlations were from low to moderate, suggesting that these measures tapped different, overlapping aspects of school adjustment. We examined whether there were gender differences in the relations between parenting practices and child variables (i.e. whether the relations were moderated by gender). Multiple regression analyses were used for this purpose as parenting variables were continuous variables. In the analyses, each of the child social and school variables was the criterion variable. The interaction between child gender and each of the parenting variables was entered into the equation after the main effects of gender and parenting were controlled. Signicant interactions were found: (1) between child gender and mothers’ authoritative parenting in predicting aggressiondisruption, R2 change 5 .02, P , .05; (2) between gender and mothers’ authoritarian parenting in predicting sociability-competence, R2 change 5 .02, P , .05; and (3) between gender and mothers’ authoritarian parenting in predicting shyness, R2 change 5 .04, P , .01. Correlations for boys and girls were computed and are presented in Table 1 separately when signicant gender differences in the relations were found. The results indicated that authoritarian parenting style of both parents was signicantly and positively correlated with aggression-disruption. The TABLE 1 Intercorrelations among Child Social and School Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Sociometic preference Sociability Aggression Shyness Distinguished studentship School achievement

**P ,

.01; ***P ,

.001.

1

2

3

4

5

.60*** 2 .43*** .14** .50*** .53***

2 .26*** .19*** .70*** .61***

2 .09 2 .21*** 2 .47***

.07 2 .02

.53***


865

TABLE 2 Correlations between Parenting Practices and Child Social and School Performance Mother (N 5

Sociometric preference Sociability Aggression Shyness Distinguished studentship School achievement

263)

Father (N 5

249)

Authoritative

Authoritarian

Authoritative

Authoritarian

.15** .15** .07/2 .27*** 2 .01 .13* .10*

2 .19** .06/2 .22** .19** .03/2 .31*** 2 .16** 2 .27***

.13* .13* 2 .16** 2 .05 .13* .19**

2 .36*** 2 .30*** .27*** 2 .25*** 2 .31*** 2 .31***

Note: Correlations for boys and girls are presented before and after the slash, respectively when signicant sex differences were found. *P , .05; **P , .01; ***P , .001.

results also indicated that authoritarian style of both parents was signicantly and negatively correlated with sociometric preference, distinguished studentship and school achievement. Fathers’ authoritarian parenting was signicantly and negatively correlated with sociabilitycompetence and shyness. Mothers’ authoritarian parenting was signicantly and negatively correlated with sociability-competence and shyness for girls, but not for boys. Authoritative style of both parents was signicantly and positively correlated with peer sociometric preference, sociability-competence, distinguished studentship, and school achievement. Fathers’ authoritative parenting was signicantly and negatively correlated with aggressiondisruption. Mothers’ authoritative parenting style was signicantly and negatively correlated with aggression-disruption for girls, but not for boys. No other correlations were signicant. In general, these results suggested that children of authoritarian parents tended to have problems in social adjustment and academic performance in the school. In contrast, children who had authoritative parents tended to adjust well both socially and academically in the school. A series of regression analyses was conducted to examine relative contributions of the parenting variables to the prediction of child social and school performance. Because there were signicant gender differences in the relations between mothers’ parenting styles and child sociabilitycompetence, aggression-disruption and shyness, regression analyses were conducted separately for boys and girls for these social variables. Given the parallel status of the four parenting variables, they were entered into the equation simultaneously to control for overlap among the variables. We rst found that mothers’ authoritative parenting style was signicantly and uniquely predictive of sociometric preference over and above the contributions of other parenting variables, b 5 .13, P , .05. Fathers’

866

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

authoritative style signicantly and positively predicted school achievement, b 5 .18, P , .01. Fathers’ authoritarian parenting signicantly and negatively contributed to the prediction of sociometric preference, b 5 2 .37, P , .001, distinguished studentship, b 5 2 .32, P , .001, and school achievement, b 5 2 .23, P , .01. The analyses that were conducted separately for boys and girls revealed that mothers’ authoritative styles signicantly and negatively predicted aggression-disruption for girls, b 5 2 .18, P , .05, but not for boys. In addition, fathers’ authoritarian style signicantly predicted sociabilitycompetence for both boys and girls, b 5 2 .30, P , .01, and b 5 2 .36, P , .001, respectively, aggression-disruption for both boys and girls, b 5 .32, P , .01, and b 5 .19, P , .05, and shyness for girls, b 5 2 .28, P , .01. No other parenting variables signicantly predicted child variables. The total variance that was accounted for by the four parenting variables (R2) was 16% for sociometric preference, 12% for distinguished studentship, 17% for school achievement. The parenting variables accounted for 11% and 20% of the variance of sociability-competence, 11% and 15% of the variance of aggression-disruption, and 2% and 16% of the variance of shyness, for boys and girls, respectively. Finally, because the children in this sample were from families in which parents had different occupational and educational levels, we examined whether parental occupation and education were related to parenting practices and whether parental occupation and education moderated the relations between parenting and child social and school adjustment. Parental educational levels and occupations were signicantly correlated, rs 5 .42 and .51, P , .001, for mothers and fathers, respectively; they were standardised and then aggregated to form a single index of social status for each parent (see Chen & Rubin, 1994 for further information). It was found that parental social status was signicantly and positively correlated with authoritative patterns, r 5 .15, P , .01, and .13, P , .05, for mothers and fathers, respectively. Moreover, mothers’ social status was found to be signicantly and negatively correlated with authoritarian parenting, r 5 2 .17, P , .01. There was nonsignicant relation between fathers’ social status and authoritarian parenting style. The results suggested that parents with a relatively higher occupational and educational level were more likely to use authoritative practices and less likely to use authoritarian practices in child rearing. Regression analyses revealed that interactions between parental social status and parenting practices were nonsignicant in predicting child social and school variables. The results indicated that the relations between authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social functioning and school achievement were consistent for children from families with different occupational and educational status.


867

DISCUSSION It has been found consistently that Chinese parents are more authoritarian and less authoritative than North American parents (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987; Lin & Fu, 1990). However, little is known about the adaptational meanings of authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles in Chinese culture. In other words, it is unclear how these parenting styles are relevant to social functioning and school performance in Chinese children. For example, regardless of cross-cultural differences between Chinese and Western parents in the mean level of authoritarianism and authoritativeness, are relative variations among Chinese parents in these parenting styles associated with different school performance in children? Furthermore, are the patterns of the relations between these parenting styles and child performance similar to what have been found in Western cultures (e.g. Baumrind, 1971)? The results of the present study indicated that, inconsistent with the arguments in the literature (e.g. Chao, 1994; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Ekblad, 1986; Steinberg et al., 1992; Wu, 1981), authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles were relevant to children’s academic success and social adjustment in China. It was found that authoritarian parenting of both mothers and fathers was positively associated with aggressiondisruption and negatively associated with peer acceptance, sociabilitycompetence, distinguished studentship, and school achievement. It was also found that authoritative parenting style was positively related to children’s peer acceptance, social competence, and school achievement and negatively related to children’s social difculties. The results of the regression analyses were largely consistent with these ndings. Thus, it may be safe to conclude that authoritarian and authoritative parenting practices in Chinese culture serve the functions in child rearing that are similar to those found in Western cultures (e.g. Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In both cultures, authoritarian parenting, as represented by parental enforcement, punishment and negative affect, may lead to confusion, frustration and feelings of insecurity in children which, in turn, may lead to deviant social behaviours and peer rejection in the school. Furthermore, given that authoritarian parents provide little explanation, guidance, and emotional support in child rearing, their children may be less likely than others to develop intrinsic achievement motivation and more likely than others to experience difculties in academic performance, which may in turn lead to further parental disappointment and rejection. In contrast, authoritative parenting based on warmth, induction, and encouragement of exploration may be associated with condence and positive orientation towards the world which, in turn, may lead to child competent behaviour in the peer group and high academic motivation and achievement.

868

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

It was found that parental social status was positively associated with authoritative patterns and negatively associated with authoritarian parenting style, although the associations were weak. Compared with parents who had low educational and occupational levels, parents with a relatively high social status appeared to be less likely to value authoritarian, power-assertive, and punitive strategies, and more likely to understand the importance of inductive and rational parenting for social and cognitive development in children. Nevertheless, nonsignicant interactions between parental social status and parenting styles were found on peer acceptance, social functioning, and academic achievement in children. Thus, the relevancy of authoritarian and authoritative parenting practices to social competence and academic performance was consistent for children from families with different occupational and educational status. The results of the present study suggested also that parenting practices might function differently at cross-cultural and intra-cultural levels; generalisation of the ndings from one level to the other might be inappropriate. Although differences between Chinese and North American parents in parenting practices may not account for cross-cultural differences in children’s academic achievement (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987), it would be incorrect to conclude that authoritarian and authoritative parenting patterns or parental inuences are irrelevant to individual differences in school performance within Chinese or American culture. Consistently, the ndings concerning the associations between authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles and children’s school performance in Chinese and American Cultures do not imply that cross-cultural differences in school performance between Chinese and American children may necessarily be explained by different parenting styles in Chinese and American parents. It was found in the present study that authoritarian parenting style was signicantly and negatively associated with shyness-social inhibition. This result was opposite to the ndings that authoritarian practices are positively predictive of shy, restrained, and reticent behaviour in Western children (e.g. Baumrind, 1971; Mills & Rubin, 1993). The different results concerning the relations between parenting practices and shyness-inhibition in Chinese and Western children may be due to the different meanings of shy-inhibited behaviour in the two cultures. As we described earlier, although shy, anxious, and restrained behaviour is considered socially immature and incompetent, indicating internalising problems in the West (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981), it is acceptable in Chinese culture (e.g. Chen et al., 1992, 1995a, b). Indeed, shy-inhibited children are regarded as understanding and well behaved in China. Consistent with this argument, it was found in the present study that shyness-inhibition was positively associated with sociability-competence and peer social preference. Given this background,


869

it is conceivable that authoritarian parenting is negatively associated with shyness-inhibition in Chinese children. The child’s gender may serve as a moderating variable in the inuences of family conditions, including parenting practices, on social and school performance. For example, it has been reported that girls may be more involved in family activities, especially with the mother (e.g. Crouter et al., 1995), and thus more responsive and sensitive to parental inuences than boys (e.g. Hart et al., 1992). This may be also the case in China because girls are often encouraged to help the mother with household chores whereas boys are typically encouraged to go out and play with peers. Consequently, parenting styles and family conditions may have greater impact on girls than on boys. This argument was consistent with the ndings in the present study concerning gender differences in the relations between mothers’ parenting styles and child social functioning. It was found that mothers’ authoritative parenting signicantly and negatively predicted aggression-disruption for girls; however, the association between the two variables was nonsignicant for boys. Moreover, it was found that mothers’ authoritarian style was signicantly and negatively associated with social competence and shynessinhibition for girls, but not for boys. These results suggested that boys and girls might respond differently to mothers’ parenting behaviour. There were several limitations in this study. First, we used the Block’s CRPR to measure parenting practices so that the results could be compared with the Western literature extant. Although this measure has been commonly used and proved valid in other cultures (e.g. Lin & Fu, 1990; Mizuta et al., 1996) and although the results of the present study demonstrated meaningful associations between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles and social and school performance in Chinese children, it is important to examine systematically the validity of the measure in broader areas of Chinese children’s adjustment in the future. Second, due to the “one-child-per-family” policy in China, almost all of the participants in our sample were children who did not have siblings. It should be noted that researchers have recently found nonsignicant differences between only and sibling children in China (e.g. Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1994). Moreover, there is no extant evidence indicating that only versus sibling status may moderate or confound the relations between parenting and child functioning. Nevertheless, one should be careful in generalising the results of this study to other populations. Finally, the present study was correlational in nature. It has been argued that, although parental behaviour inuences child behaviour and performance, child characteristics and behaviour may affect parenting (Bell & Chapman, 1986; Lytton, 1990). Thus, the ndings concerning the relations between authoritarian and authoritative parenting practices and child social adjustment and school achievement in the present study should be understood with caution in terms

870

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

of causal inuences. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of effect, the results concerning the associations between authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles and child social and school adjustment demonstrated the relevancy of these parenting styles in Chinese culture. This is the major contribution of the study to the area of parenting. Manuscript received July 1996 Revised manuscript received April 1997

REFERENCES Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46 (Serial No. 188). Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding 3 patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (1, Pt. 2). Baumrind, D. (1991). The inuences of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. Bell, R.Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22, 595–603. Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: I. Stability and change in mother-infant and father-infant interaction in a family setting at one, three, and nine months. Child Development, 49, 929–949. Block, J.H. (1981). The Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the description of parental socialization attitudes and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Human Development. Bornstein, M.H. (1991). Cultural approaches to parenting. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Bornstein, M.H. (1995). Handbook of parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119. Chen, X. (in press). The changing Chinese family: Resources, parenting practices, and children’s socio-emotional problems. In U.P. Gielen & A.L. Comunian (Eds.), Family and family therapy in international perspective. Milan: Marinelli Editrice. Chen, X., & Kaspar, V. (in press). Cross-cultural research on childhood. In U.P. Gielen & A.L. Conmunian (Eds.), Cross-cultural and international dimensions of psychology. Trieste: Edinzioni Lint Trieste. Chen, X., & Rubin, K.H. (1994). Family conditions, parental acceptance and social competence and aggression. Social Development, 3, 269–290. Chen, X., Rubin, K.H., & Li, B. (1994). Only children and sibling children in urban China: A re-examination. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 413–421. Chen, X., Rubin, K.H., & Li, B. (1995a). Depressed mood in Chinese children: Relations with school performance and family environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 938–947.


871

Chen, X., Rubin, K.H., & Li, Z. (1995b). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 31, 531–539. Chen, X., Rubin, K.H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336–1343. Chiu, L.H. (1987). Child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Chinese-American, and AngloAmerican mothers. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 409–419. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A ve-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge University Press. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Crouter, A.C., Manke, B.A., & McHale, S.M. (1995). The family context of gender intensication in early adolescence. Child Development, 66, 317–329. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J.M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing styles and child’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28, 925–932. Dekovic, M., Janssens, J.M., & Gerris, J.R.M. (1991). Factor structure and construct validity of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment, 3, 182–187. Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, R., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257. Eisenberg, N., & Murphy, B. (1995). Parenting and children’s moral development. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Applied and practical parenting (pp. 227–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Ekblad, S. (1986). Relationships between child-rearing practices and primary school children’s functional adjustment in the People’s Republic of China. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 27, 220–230. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Long, N., Burke, M., & Faust, J. (1987). The relationship of young adolescent Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) scores to their social and cognitive functioning. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 9, 161–172. Garcia Coll, C.T., Meyer, E.C., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 189–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Harkness, S., & Super, C.M. (1995). Culture and parenting. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 211–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Hart, C.H., DeWolf, D.M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D.C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879–892. Hightower, A.D., Work, W.C., Cohen, E.L., Lotyczewski, B.S., Spinell, A.P., Guare, J.C., & Rohrbeck, C.A. (1986). The Teacher-Child Rating Scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children’s school problem behaviours and competences. School Psychology Review, 15, 393–409. Ho, D.Y.F. (1986). Chinese pattern of socialization: A critical review. In M.H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1–37). New York: Oxford University Press. Kellam, S.G., Brown, C.H., Rubin, B.R., & Ensminger, M.E. (1983). Paths leading to teenage psychiatric symptoms and substance use: Developmental epidemiological studies in Woodlawn. In S.B. Guze, F.J. Earls, & J.E. Barrett (Eds.), Childhood psychopathology and development (pp. 17–51). New York: Raven.

872

CHEN, DONG, ZHOU

Kelley, M.L. (1992). Cultural differences in child rearing: A comparison of immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 444–455. Kelley, M.L., Power, T.G., & Wimbush, D.D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573–582. King, A.Y.C., & Bond, M.H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. In W.S. Tseng & D.Y.H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29–42). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kochanska, G. (1990). Maternal beliefs as long-term predictors of mother-child interaction and report. Child Development, 61, 1934–1943. Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between mothers’ self-reported and observational child-rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56–63. Lamborn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1065. Lempers, J.D., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R.L. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60, 138–151. Lin, C.C., & Fu, V.R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 61, 429–433. Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys’ conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683–697. Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, C.N. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (pp.1–102). New York: Wiley. Masten, A., Morison, P., & Pelligrini, D. (1985). A revised class play method of peer assessment. Child Development, 21, 523–533. Mills, R., & Rubin, K.H. (1993). Socialization factors in the development of social withdrawal. In K.H. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 117–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Mizuta, I., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P.M., & Hiruma, N. (1996). A cross-cultural study of preschoolers’ attachment: Security and sensitivity in Japanese and US dyads. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 141–159. Morison, P., & Masten, A. (1991). Peer reputation in middle childhood as a predictor of adaptation in adolescence: A seven-year follow-up. Child Development, 62, 991–1007. Parke, R.D. (1994). Fathers and families. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Vol.3. Status and social conditions of parenting (pp. 27–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.P. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychology Bulletin, 102, 357–389. Rickel, A.U., & Biasatti, L.L. (1982). Modication of the Block child rearing practices report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129–134. Rubin, K.H. & Asendorpf, J. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B.B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologists, 47, 723–729. Stevenson, H.W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Stigler, J.W., Hsu, C., & Kitamura, S. (1990). Contexts of achievement. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55 (Serial No. 221). Whiting, B.B., & Edwards, C.P. (1988). Children of different worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


873

Weiss, B., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development, 63, 1321–1335. Wu, D.H. (1981). Child abuse in Taiwan. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 139–165). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. (1979). Child rearing and children’s prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319–330.