INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY LIFESTYLES AND PARENTING ...

ISSN 1941-7233 http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/1941-7233.11.5

INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY LIFESTYLES AND PARENTING STYLE IN LITHUANIAN PARENTS OF 6-TO 12-YEAR-OLDS

Jolita Jonynienė 1, Roy M. Kern Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania

Abstract. Background. Although numerous research studies related to the connection between parents’ personality and parenting have continually supported the significance of personality as an important variable in predicting parenting behaviors, the findings are mostly limited to the five-trait personality model, parental psychopathology or the samples of adolescents’ parents. Purpose. In this research study we examined the relationship of the personality construct of lifestyle proposed in the theory of Individual Psychology and parenting styles based on Baumrind’s parenting model with a Lithuanian sample. Materials and Methods. The Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult Form (BASIS-A; Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993) and the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire – Short Version (PSDQ-Short Version; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001) were administered to 615 parents from seven Lithuanian cities. The final sample consisted of 577 parents. Results and Conclusions. The findings of the study were that a large number of lifestyle personality attributes measured by the BASIS-A were interrelated to the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles as described by Baumrind. The most relevant prognostic value findings were related to the Belonging/ Social Interest, Being Cautious and Wanting Recognition major scales and the Harshness, Striving for Perfection and Softness supporting scales related to the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. When the results of this study were compared to previous research in North America, there were modest similarities in findings. Keywords: Baumrind, Individual Psychology, Lifestyle, Parenting Style, Personality.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jolita Jonyniene or Roy Kern in the Department of Theoretical Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio g. 52-315, LT-44244 Kaunas, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].

1

89

Jolita Jonynienė, Roy M. Kern

Developmental psychologists have believed for some time that parenting styles used by parents play a critical role in biopsychosocial well being of their children (e.g. Baumrind, 1971; Belsky, 1984; Desjardins, Zelenski & Coplan, 2008; Kochanska, Clark & Goldman, 1997; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002; Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijntjes & Belsky, 2009). Parenting is a long term challenging, affectively charged task that claims a major portion of parents’ lives and personal resources. As with other life tasks ranging from the establishment of social relationships to the mastery of educational and work activities, the variation of parenting styles adopted by parents is impacted by their personality dynamics (Kochanska et al., 1997; Prinzie et al., 2009). Though some theoretical models have been proposed to explain the interplay of personality, parenting styles and developmental outcomes, empirical evidence has yielded a variety and at times inconsistent findings (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Metsapelto & Pulkkinen, 2003).

RESEARCH ON PERSONALITY AND PARENTING Numerous research studies related to the connection between parents’ personality and parenting have continually supported and suggested the significance of personality as an important variable in predicting a variety of parenting behaviors (Desjardins et al., 2008; De Haan, Prinzie & Dekovic, 2009; Huver, Otten, de Vries & Engels, 2009; Kitamura, Shikai, Uji, Hiramura, Tanaksa & Shono, 2009; Kochanska et al., 1997; Metsapelto & Pulkinnen, 2003; Latzman, Elkovitch & Clark, 2009; Lundberg, Perris & Adolfson, 2000; Oliver, Wright Guerin & Coffman, 2009; Olsen, Martin & Halverson, 1999). The majority of these studies have focused on exploring the relationships of parenting behaviors and the five-trait personality model. The results in general have indicated that extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience coupled with low scores on the neuroticism scale are associated with parenting behaviors of warmth and behavioral control (De Haan et al., 2009; Prinzie et al., 2009), nurturance, emotional involvement and authoritativeness (Huver at al., 2009; Metsapelto & Pulkinnen, 2003) and ease in setting limits (Oliver et al., 2009). Less desirable parenting behaviors related to healthy development of children are 90

International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris

2012, 11, 89–117 p.

associated with neuroticism, low extraversion, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness and low openness to experience. These personality attributes were found to be associated with emotional detachment, authoritarianism (Metsapelto & Pulkinnen, 2003), power based assertiveness, less responsive parenting behaviors (Kochanska et al., 1997) and overreactivity (De Haan et al., 2009). Though existing research findings have increased our understanding of the connection of personality and parenting behavior and parenting styles, the findings have limitations. These limitations include the exclusivity of reporting findings on one personality model (Prinzie et al., 2009), emphasis on parental psychopathology (e. g. depression) versus positive dimensions of personality or parenting (De Haan et al., 2009; Kochanska et al., 1997; Olsen et al., 1999) and in general the majority of the studies have focused on parents of adolescence and less attention to young children (e. g. Gfroerer et al., 2011; Huver et al., 2009; Latzman et al., 2009; Oliver et al., 2009). So the authors in this study wondered if there might be a possibility to address some of these proposed limitations so as to increase our knowledge base of the connection of personality and parenting styles by exploring other theoretical models related to personality and parenting styles.

DEFINITION OF LIFESTYLE When one reads the theory of Individual Psychology as created by Alfred Adler, it will become clear that Adler’s term for personality was lifestyle. However, in his writings he would also refer to it as life plan, style of life, or unity of the personality. Ferguson (2007) describes lifestyle as a consistent model of a person’s behavior or attitudes, and system which gives the direction for adapting to social environment, growing and solving everyday’s problems as well as taking the advantages of various opportunities. We propose that the term lifestyle can be conceptualized as an organized set of beliefs that the individual creates before the age of seven within the confines of the family and consistently employs throughout life to solve problems related to social relationships, career, and intimacy issues (e. g. coupling process, parenting, and child rearing practices). 91


RESEARCH ON LIFESTYLE Empirical studies on lifestyle were limited until the objective instrument to measure lifestyle was developed in 1993 (Wheeler, Kern & Curlette, 1993). The instrument was named the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult Form and commonly referred to in the literature by the acronym BASIS-A. The instrument consists of five major scales of Belonging/ Social Interest, Going Along, Taking Charge, Wanting Recognition, Being Cautious and five supporting scales of Harshness, Entitlement, Liked by All, Striving for Perfection and Softness. Since its inception there have been extensive studies using the instrument with samples of teachers, employees in organizational settings, substance abusers, high school and university students, prison populations, murderers, clinical populations and to a much lesser degree with parents (e. g. Eckstein & Kern, 2009; Frey, Kern, Snow & Curlette, 2009; Kern, Gormley & Curlette, 2008; Liesiene, Endriulaitiene, Buksnyte, Gustainiene & Kern, 2010; Snow, Kern & Curlette, 2001). Furthermore, there are no studies that have been conducted with a sample of Lithuanian parents on this topic.

RESEARCH ON LIFESTYLE AND PARENTING The studies on lifestyle and parenting are in their embryonic stage of development in North America and other countries. Two studies were found which investigated Individual Psychology lifestyle and parenting to date. Sutherland (2000) found that the lifestyle personality attributes of Going Along scale on the BASIS-A was connected to parenting stress: the more rule focused the parent tended to be, the more stress parent reported related to parenting (as cited in Kern et al., 2008). The research carried out by Gfroerer, Kern, Curlette, White & Jonyniene (2011) expanded on these findings by designing a comprehensive study with a larger sample that included parenting styles and lifestyles of parents related to their adolescents. The researchers found that parental Belonging/ Social Interest and Going Along themes/scales were positively related and Harshness inversely related to authoritative parenting style. Based on the scale descriptions of the Belonging/ Social Interest and the 92


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

Going Along scale, this sample of parents would more likely endorse open communication, flexibility of rules coupled with a clear sense of the boundaries of family members. This in turn would contribute to a more authoritative or democratic family atmosphere. Also of interest was the negative correlation of parents on the Harshness scale of the inventory. This finding would support parents viewed their family of origin as one that was less critical and possibly more trusting and predictable. Parental authoritarianism was found to be positively correlated to the attributes as follows: Taking Charge, Wanting Recognition and the supporting scales of Entitlement and Liked by All. These findings may be interpreted based on these scales as parents who place a higher value on control, obedience but wish to be recognized and validated by their children or youth (Gfroerer et al., 2011).

RESEARCH ON BAUMRIND’S PARENTING STYLES MODEL Gfroerer et al. (2011) not only explored lifestyle of parents but in addition systematically conceptualized the connection of Baumrind’s parenting model to the parenting constructs expounded by Adler and his followers. Though parenting styles according to Baumrind are based on her research and the Individual Psychology’s parenting model is more theoretically driven, the models have many similarities (Gfroerer et al., 2011). According to Baumrind (1971), parenting styles can be explained by two independent bipolar factors: warmth (or responsiveness) and control (or demandingness). Warmth/ responsiveness dimension refers to the degree of parental nurturance, emotional expression and positive reinforcement of child’s opinion whereas the control/ demandingness dimension reflect the parents’ level of demands, control or expectations (Baumrind, 1971; Desjardins et al., 2008). The combinations of these two factors in various degrees according to Baumrind create the behaviors and attitudes that can be conceptualized in three parenting styles: authoritative parenting (high on control and warmth), authoritarian parenting (high on control but low on warmth) and permissive parenting (low on control but high on warmth; Greenspan, 2006). In the parenting 93


model from an Individual Psychology perspective democratic parenting holds many similarities to Baumrind’s authoritative parenting with parents being more responsive to children’s needs, more likely to use discipline procedures in a more respectful way and be more prone to encourage children to express their thoughts and feelings, maintain social interest (Dinkmeyer Sr., McKay & Dinkmeyer Jr., 1997; Dreikurs & Soltz; 2007; Gfroerer, Kern & Curlette, 2004). Meanwhile, the other side in Individual Psychology’s parenting model is autocratic parenting with unreasonable limits, little or no freedom and strict reward and punishment system which are similar to Baumrind’s authoritarian parenting (Dinkmeyer Sr. et al., 1997). Researchers claim that the authoritative parenting style described by Baumrind or the democratic parenting style as proposed in the Individual Psychology literature appears to be more acceptable based on research findings that show higher levels of empathy, pro-social behavior, life satisfaction, co-operative attitudes and lower depression in children (Evans, 2005; Hubbs-Tait, Kenedy, Page, Topham & Harrist, 2008; McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De Lisi, 2007; Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter & Keehn, 2007; Latouf, 2008; Cheah, Leung, Tahseen & Schultz, 2009; Pong, Johnston & Chen, 2010). Many of these findings support the clinical and psycho-educational materials based on the Individual Psychology principle represented in the parenting programs such as Systematic Training of Effective Parenting (Dinkmeyer Sr. et al., 1997) and Active Parenting (Popkin, 1993). The limited number of studies related to research and application of the Individual Psychology construct of lifestyle and Baumrind’s parenting model hold promise but it clearly demonstrates the need for additional studies with larger samples, different age groups, and with different ethnic groups before one can make definitive statements about the interplay of parenting styles and lifestyle.

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS In our study we attempted to fill this void and examined the relationship of the personality construct of lifestyle proposed in the theory of Individual Psychology by Alfred Adler and parenting styles 94


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

based on the work of Baumrind’s parenting model with a Lithuanian sample. To date, this is the second study related to exploring the interrelatedness of lifestyle and the Baumrind’s parenting model and the first with a Lithuanian sample of parents of young children. The research questions addressed were as follows: 1. What are the relationships among Individual Psychology lifestyles and Baumrind’s parenting styles in a Lithuanian parent sample? 2. Which lifestyle themes, if any, have a prognostic value for authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles? 3. Are there similar results in previous studies related to lifestyle dynamics and parenting styles conducted in North America?

METHOD Measures

Individual Psychology lifestyles. The instrument used to measure the parental personality construct of lifestyle was the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult Form (BASIS-A; Wheeler et al., 1993). The BASIS-A provides insight about an individual’s general problem solving approaches to life based on perceptions resulting from ones early childhood experiences (Frey & Snow, 2005). It is a 65-item inventory asking respondents to rate early childhood items prior to the age of 10 on a five point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The five major scales of the BASIS-A are as follows: Belonging/ Social Interest (BSI), Going Along (GA), Taking Charge (TC), Wanting Recognition (WR) and Being Cautious (BC). Brief descriptions and means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients for the major personality characteristics are presented in Table 1. The BASIS-A inventory also includes five supportive or HELPS scales. These are as follows: Harshness (H), Entitlement (E), Liked by All (L), Striving for Perfection (P) and Softness (S). Brief descriptions and means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients for the additional personality characteristics are presented in Table 2.

95


Table 1. Descriptions of the BASIS-A major scales 1 lentelė. Gyvenimo stilių klausimyno pagrindinių skalių aprašomosios charakteristikos Scale

Lifestyle personality attributes

Measures the construct of an individual’s sense of community involvement High score – extroverted, cooperative, problem-solvingoriented, socially skilled, prefer large group interactions Low score – introverted, more reliant on self than others, prefer small group or individual interactions Going Assesses how rule focused the Along (GA) individual tends to be High score – agreeable, structurefocused, conflict-avoiding Low score – tolerates ambiguity and conflict, disregards rules, organization and rebel against them Taking Reflects a person’s preference for Charge (TC) being the leader High score – dominant in social groups, prefer directing and/or controlling others Low score – prefer to follow the directions, likes others to take on the responsibility of leadership in social situations Wanting Measures individual’s need to be Recognition liked and accepted by others as (WR) well as need for recognition of personal efforts High score – success-driven, achievement-oriented, tend to enjoy reassurance or feedback from others on a job well done Low score – tend to feel good about their accomplishments, place little value on feedback, can be seen by others as cold or uncaring

Number of Items

Mean

Standard Cronbach’s Deviation alpha

Belonging/ Social Interest (BSI)

96

9

35.22

4.73

.79

8

29.80

5.13

.78

8

20.55

6.85

.83

11

41.45

5.33

.76


Scale


Being Cautious (BC)

Assesses individual’s feelings of safety in social interactions High score – highly suspicious, skeptical of the motivations of others, sensitive to the affects of others Low score – trusting, accepting others, flexible, optimistic about future

Number of Items

8

Mean

17.11

2012, 11, 89–117 p.

Standard Cronbach’s Deviation alpha

6.13

.83

Note. References: Frey & Snow, 2005; Gfroerer et al., 2011; Peluso, Peluso, Kern, Buckner, Curlette, 2004; Peluso et al., 2010; Snow et al., 2001.

Table 2. Descriptions of the HELPS scales 2 lentelė. Gyvenimo stilių klausimyno papildomų skalių aprašomosios charakteristikos Scale Harshness (H)


Measures the degree to which an individual views or perceives their childhood as difficult, has a negative self-view, sees life events as challenging Entitlement Provides insights about how much (E) attention an individual needs in order to feel accepted and how important it is for him/her to be treated as an unique person on social settings Liked by Measures the degree to which an All (L) individual seeks to please others and receive approval from others Striving for Measures an individual’s level of Perfection organization, task-completing(P) focused, problem solving and stress-coping skills Softness (S) Assesses the degree of optimism one has about self, the world and the degree to which an individual presents a more favorable picture of his/ her childhood experiences than others viewing similar life events

Number of Items

Mean Standard Cronbach’s Deviation alpha

5

12.42

2.41

.26

6

15.66

4.61

.75

6

22.21

3.22

.65

6

22.03

3.14

.68

5

20.12

3.00

.57

Note. References: Gfroerer et al.; 2011; Liesiene, 2010; Snow et al., 2001. 97


The original BASIS-A instrument has adequate psychometric characteristics as reported in a significant number of research findings (see Gfroerer et al., 2011; Peluso, Soltz, Belangee, Frey, Peluso, 2010). Internal consistency reliabilities are high ranging from .82 to .87. Testretest stability for the five major scales varies from one study to another but is moderate to high ranging from .60 to .91 (Gfroerer et al., 2011). The stability for the HELPS scales using a coefficient of agreement procedure ranged from .92 to 1.00 showing very good agreement (Curlette, Wheeler, & Kern, 1997). The validity of the instrument and its stucture has be demonstrated by a variety of studies (see Eckstein & Kern, 2009; Gfroerer et al., 2011; Peluso et al., 2010). Though the analysis of the psychometric characteristics of the Lithuanian BASIS-A instrument are still in progress, the preliminary adequate psychometrics have been reported (Liesiene, 2010). The Cronbach‘s alphas for the five basic scales range from .68 to .82 identifying sufficient internal consistency reliability. Test-retest stability for the five basic scales is high and ranges from .82 to .92. The Lithuanian version of the BASIS-A instrument has been cross validated with a Big Five Inventory (Liesiene, 2010). The Kappa test-retest statistic was used to assess the stability for the HELPS scales with the Lithuanian sample over a four week period with a sample of 51 parent (88% mothers). The agreement between two administrations was strong for Harshness, Liked by All and Softness with Kappa coefficients equal to 1.00. The moderate agreement was found for the Entitlement scale with Kappa coefficient equal to .50 (p .1). The fit of each model with 101


the data was examined in terms of Chi-square statistic and comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). However, in this data analysis more attention was given to the CFI, IFI, RMSEA indexes for assessing model fit which are less sensitive to the sample size (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999). According to conventional criteria, a good fit would be indicated by CFI > .95, IFI > .95, and RMSEA < .05. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was also employed for comparing the models with lower AIC values identifying a better model (Cekanavicius & Murauskas, 2009, pp. 181). All the statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 and Amos 7.0.

RESULTS Correlations between Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting style

Correlations between parental Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting styles are presented in Table 4. Overall, authoritative parenting style was significantly associated with seven lifestyle personality themes/ scales and authoritarian parenting style with eight lifestyle personality scales. Table 4. Correlations between Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting styles 4 lentelė. Gyvenimo stilių ir vaiko auklėjimo stilių tarpusavio koreliacija Individual Psychology lifestyles Belonging/Social Interest (BSI) Going Along (GA) Taking Charge (TC) Wanting Recognition (WR) Being Cautious (BC) Harshness (H) Entitlement (E) Liked by All (L) Striving for Perfection (P) Softness (S)

Note. *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. 102

Authoritative .25*** .05 .05 .19*** -.16*** -.20*** .06 .11* .31*** .20***

Parenting styles Authoritarian -.09 -.17*** .10* .13** .24*** .18*** .06 .12** -.14** -.17***


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

Authoritativeness was weakly-to-moderately correlated with the lifestyle attributes represented on the major scales of Belonging/Social Interest (.25), Wanting Recognition (.19), Being Cautious (-.16) and the supporting scales of Harshness (-.20), Liked by All (.11), Striving for Perfection (.31) and Softness (.20). The correlational analysis results supported that authoritative parenting strategies were employed more often by parents who were more extroverted and cooperative (BSI), more success-driven and approval-oriented (WR, L), more problem solution focused and less stressed (P), optimistic (S), trusting (BC), and saw life events as less challenging (H). No significant association was found between authoritative parenting style and primary and supporting scales of lifestyle personality attributes on the Going Along, Taking Charge or Entitlement. The authoritarian parenting style was weakly-to-moderately correlated with the lifestyle themes of Going Along (-.17), Taking Charge (.10), Wanting Recognition (.13), Being Cautious (.24), Harshness (.18), Liked by All (.12), Striving for Perfection (-.14) and Softness (-.17). Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that authoritarian parenting strategies were more often reported by parents who were less rule-oriented (GA), more directive in interactions with others, success-driven and approvaloriented (WR, L), felt less safe in social interactions (BC), self-critical (H), less organized and problem solving attributes (P) and more pessimistic (S). The associations between authoritarian parenting style and Belonging/ Social Interest and Entitlement were statistically insignificant.

REGRESSION MODELS FOR PREDICTING PARENTING FROM INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY LIFESTYLES Stepwise multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the impact of lifestyle on the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. The significance level for entering the predictor was equal to .05 and for removing was equal to .10. The findings presented in Table 5 and Table 6 indicate that lifestyle personality scales/attributes have a prognostic value for both parenting styles. It is also clear that different personality variables are statistically significant for predicting parenting. 103


Table 5. Regression models for predicting authoritative parenting style from lifestyle personality attributes 5 lentelė. Regresiniai modeliai autoritetiniam vaiko auklėjimo stiliui pagal gyvenimo stilius prognozuoti Predictor

B

Authoritative parenting style SE β

R2

Model 1 Constant Striving for Perfection (P)

2.76 .05

Constant Striving for Perfection (P) Belonging/ Social Interest (BSI)

2.35 .04 .02

Constant Striving for Perfection (P) Belonging/Social Interest (BSI) Wanting Recognition (WR)

1.93 .04 .02 .01

Constant Striving for Perfection (P) Belonging/Social Interest (BSI) Wanting Recognition (WR) Being Cautious (BC)

2.15 .03 .02 .01 -.01

.16 .01

.31

.09

.20 .01 .01

.25 .16

.25 .01 .01 .00

.22 .16 .12

.27 .01 .01 .00 .00

.19 .13 .15 -.11

Model 2 .11

Model 3 .13

Model 4 .14

Table 6. Regression Models for predicting authoritarian parenting style from lifestyle personality attributes 6 lentelė. Regresiniai modeliai autoritariniam vaiko auklėjimo stiliui pagal gyvenimo stilius prognozuoti Predictor

B

Authoritarian Parenting Style SE β

R2

Model 1 Constant Being Cautious (BC)

1.86 .02

Constant Being Cautious (BC) Entitlement (E)

1.66 .02 .01

.07 .00

.24

.06

.11 .00 .01

.26 .10

Model 2

104

.07


Predictor

B

Authoritarian Parenting Style SE β

2012, 11, 89–117 p.

R2

Model 3 Constant Being Cautious (BC) Entitlement (E) Striving for Perfection (P)

2.02 .02 .01 -.02

Constant Being Cautious (BC) Entitlement (E) Striving for Perfection (P) Wanting Recognition (WR)

1.73 .02 .01 -.02 .01

.20 .00 .01 .01

.24 .11 -.09

.08

.24 .00 .01 .01 .00

.21 .09 -.13 .11

Model 4 .09

As shown in Table 5, four regression models were calculated to identify the personality variables which might predict the authoritative parenting style. Striving for Perfection was the first variable included into the model and accounted for 9% of the variance of authoritative parenting style. Belonging/ Social Interest variable was added to the model and accounted for additional 2% of the variance. When Wanting Recognition was added to the model, the three lifestyle personality variables accounted for 13% of the variance related to authoritative parenting style. The final model consisted of four scales on the BASIS-A which included Striving for Perfection, Belonging/ Social Interest, Wanting Recognition and Being Cautious and accounted for 14% of the variance related to the interrelationship of lifestyle and parenting styles (F(4,478)=19.25, p< .001). Parents with higher scores in Striving for Perfection (β=.19, t=4.03, p< .001), Belonging/ Social Interest (β= .13, t=2.88, p< .01), Wanting Recognition (β= .15, t=3.30, p< .01) and lower scores on Being Cautious (β= -.11, t= -2.50, p< .05), were more authoritative. When the impact of personality variables for authoritarian parenting style was analyzed, different lifestyle personality attributes were identified to have a prognostic value. As shown in Table 6, four regression models were also calculated. Being Cautious was found to have the most significant influence and accounted for 6% of the variance of Authoritarianism. Second, Entitlement variable was added which resulted in 7% of the variance explained. Striving for Perfection was added to the model and 105


the three lifestyle personality attributes explained 8% of the variance. The final model consisted of the four personality variables of Being Cautious, Entitlement, Striving for Perfection and Wanting Recognition. This model accounted for 9% of the variance of the Authoritarian parenting style (F(4,478)=11.27, p< .001). Parents with higher scores in Being Cautious (β= .21, t= 4.43, p< .001), Entitlement (β= .09, t=1.99, p< .05), Wanting Recognition (β= .11, t=2.38, p< .05) and lower scores in Striving for Perfection (β= -.13, t= -2.68, p< .01), were more authoritarian.

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL FOR PREDICTING PARENTING FROM INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY LIFESTYLES CONSIDERING INTERCORRELATIONS OF VARIABLES Having examined the correlations between Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting styles via several regression models for explaining the prognostic value of lifestyles for parenting styles, we then used Structural Equation Modeling with the purpose of analyzing these connections with respect to the structure of covariance matrix of lifestyles. First, we created a model that included all the possible correlations between parents’ lifestyle personality attributes and parenting styles. The Structural Equation Modeling procedure revealed that the value of Chisquare statistics was equal to 75.87 (< .001, df=11). According to Fan et al. (1999), Chi-square test is highly sensitive to the sample size therefore alternative model fit indexes were analyzed (CFI= .97, IFI= .97, RMSEA= .24, AIC=244.33). However, the CFI, IFI and RMSEA analysis showed that the model was not a good fit for the data and needed to be revised. The model was adjusted by eliminating several insignificant paths. Figure 1 presents the statistically significant relations between Individual Psychology lifestyles and authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles with no covariance matrixes of lifestyles shown. The revised model showed that parental authoritativeness was reduced by the lifestyle personality attribute of Liked by All scale (L; β= -.19, p< .05) and increased by Wanting Recognition (WR; β= .44, p< .001), Going Along (GA; β= .09, p< .05), Belonging/Social Interest (BSI; β= .13, p< .01), Harshness (H; β= .09, p< .01), Striving for Perfection (P; β= .18, p< .001) and 106


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

Softness (S; β= .19, p< .001) scales. The parental authoritarianism style was increased by the lifestyle personality attributes of Softness (S; β= .10, p< .05), Entitlement (E; β= .13, p< .01), Wanting Recognition (WR; β= .19, p< .001), Being Cautious (BC; β= .21, p< .001) and Harshness (H; β= .19, p< .001) scales. Besides, the analysis also revealed a couple statistically significant tendencies. Parental authoritarianism might also be reduced by lifestyle personality attribute of Striving for Perfection (P; β= -.08, p< .1) and increased by lifestyle of Going Along (GA; β= .08, p< .1). Though the value of Chi-square statistics was equal to 78.15 (< .001, df=17), the alternative model fit indexes were more appropriate for this analysis. With the values of .98, .98 and .08 for CFI, IFI and RMSEA respectively, this model showed a reasonably good fit for the data. AIC index confirmed that the revised model fit the data better (AIC=224.15). -.05 ***

1

1 CFI= .98, IFI= .98, RMSEA= .08, AIC= 224.15

Authoritative Parenting style

.13**

.09 *

.44***

.1 9

** *

.0 9 ** *** .19

.08?

e2

Authoritarian Parenting style

.1 3 **

e1

-.08?

.19* * * . 18** *

** * .2 1

.10 *

-.19*

BSI

GA

TC

WR

BC

H

E

L

P

S

Figure 1. Revised model with standardized regression weights describing the relationship between Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting styles. BSI = Belonging/ Social Interest; GA = Going Along; TC = Taking Charge; WR = Wanting Recognition; BC = Being Cautious; H = Harshness; E = Entitlement; L = Likes by All; P = Striving for Perfection; S = Softness. ?p< .1; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. 1 pav. Pakoreguotas regresinis modelis, aprašantis ryšius tarp gyvenimo stilių ir vaiko auklėjimo stilių. BSI = Priklausymas / Socialinis interesas; GA = Pareigingumas; TC = Atsakingumas; WR = Pripažinimo siekis; BC = Atsargumas; H = Šiurkštumas; E = Teisių turėjimas; L = Siekis patikti; P = Perfekcionizmas; S = Švelnumas. ?p< .1; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. 107


Based on the analysis of standardized regression weights, the lifestyle personality attribute of Wanting Recognition scale was identified to have the highest and Going Along scale the lowest (but still statistically significant) impact on authoritative parenting style. Meanwhile, the lifestyle personality attribute of Being Cautious was found to have highest and Going Along and Striving for Perfection scales lowest impact on authoritarian parenting style.

DISCUSSION In this study, the interplay between the personality construct of lifestyle and parenting style were explored in a Lithuanian parent sample. Our measurements of lifestyle and parenting style were based on the theory of Individual Psychology and research of Baumrind’s model. Only two similar North American studies investigated the associations between lifestyle themes and parenting (Gfroerer et al., 2011; Sutherland, 2000 as cited in Kern et al., 2008). The results of the present study, taken as a whole, support the empirical evidence suggesting that parental lifestyle or personality are related to parenting behaviors or styles (e.g. Huver et al., 2009; Kitamura et al., 2009; Metsapelto & Pulkinnen, 2003; Lundberg et al., 2000, etc.). As predicted, Individual Psychology lifestyles were related in meaningful ways with the parenting styles. The correlational analysis revealed statistically significant associations between a multiple numbers of lifestyle personality attributes (seven and eight respectively) and the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. Authoritative parenting style was positively correlated with the lifestyle constructs of Belonging/ Social Interest, Wanting Recognition, Liked by All, Striving for Perfection, Softness and negatively with the Being Cautious and Harshness scale. The authoritarian parenting style was positively associated with the Taking Charge, Wanting Recognition, Being Cautious, Harshness, Liked by All scales and negatively with Going Along, Striving for Perfection and Softness scale of the BASIS-A. No significant correlation was found on the Entitlement scale related to any of the parenting styles. Though the comparisons with earlier studies are limited, our findings were somewhat inconsistent but also similar in some ways with the 108


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

findings in the North American study with Gfroerer’s et al. (2011) study of parents with adolescents. Gfroerer’s et al. (2011) research revealed that authoritative parenting style correlated significantly positively with Belonging/Social Interest and negatively with Going Along and the Harshness supporting scale. Our study demonstrated the only significant positive association between authoritative parenting scale and the Belonging/Social Interest scale. Possibly with significance finding on the Going Along in the North American study, one could propose that parents in North America may view following the rules as more important than Lithuanian parents. However, we have no explanations related to the Harshness scale in the North American study. When the authoritarian parenting style and lifestyle themes were explored, Gfroerer‘s et al. (2011) study identified significant positive correlations with Taking Charge, Wanting Recognition, Entitlement and Liked by All supporting scale. Our study supported the North American findings with significant positive associations with Taking Charge, Wanting Recognition and Liked by All. For the Lithuanian and North American samples, no significant findings were identified for the authoritative parenting style related to Wanting Recognition or Entitlement, as well as authoritarian parenting style and Belonging/ Social Interest (Gfroerer et al., 2011). These findings seem to support that parents in North America and Lithuania may view authoritarian parenting styles in a similar way. Both samples perceive their role as being directive (TC) but are also interested in having their children validated them as parents (WR, L). Overall, this first level of analysis indicates a higher level of congruence with the North American sample. We propose that the limited contradictions might be due to differences in research samples (e.g. adolescents’ vs. 6-to-12-year olds’ parents or parental gender misbalance), the measures, and, finally, the cultural context. However, we believe that it is too early to make any definitive assumptions related to cultural differences related to parenting styles in the North American/Lithuanian parent sample. In addition to the correlational analysis, a multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic/predictive value of lifestyle themes for authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. The multivariate regression analysis reduced the seven to eight lifestyle personality attribute clusters to four. Positive findings on the Striving for Perfection, Belonging/ Social Interest, Wanting Recognition and Being 109


Cautious yielded significant contributions to the prediction of authoritative parenting styles (all positive except for Being Cautious scale). The Being Cautious, Entitlement, Striving for Perfection and Wanting Recognition on the BASIS-A were predictive of authoritarian parenting style (all positive except for Striving for Perfection scale). The two regression models explained a small portion of the variances of authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (14% and 9% respectively) suggesting that other biopsychosocial factors might have influence on parenting (e. g. child’s temperament and behavior, parents’ family of origin, marital relations, contextual sources of stress and support, parental education and family socioeconomic level, etc.). When we compared the regression models constructed with the results of the North American study, only modest congruence was identified (Gfroerer et al., 2011). Gfroerer et al. (2011) found that parental authoritativeness was explained by three lifestyle scales of Going Along, Softness and Belonging/Social Interest. So only the scale of Belonging/ Social Interest was identified as a significant positive for predicting authoritarian parenting style for both North American and Lithuanian parents’ samples. When the inter-relationships of lifestyles and parenting styles were taken into consideration, several more lifestyle personality attributes were found to be significant for the prediction of parenting style. Though we could find no studies to compare the results with, we conducted the SEM procedures which indicated that parents, who were high on the scales of Belonging/Social Interest, Going Along, Wanting Recognition, Harshness, Striving for Perfection, Softness and low on the scale of Liked by All, tended to use authoritative parenting strategies more often. In contrast, parents, who were high on the scales of Wanting Recognition, Being Cautious, Harshness, Entitlement and Softness, reflected using authoritarian parenting strategies more often. Perhaps the most relevant SEM result was the prognostic value of Wanting Recognition for parental authoritativeness which accounted for almost half of the variance (.44). In addition to the prior correlational analysis discussion, it would appear from the SEM findings that parents who perceive their parenting style as authoritative also view themselves in a positive light as reflected by the lifestyle personality attribute related to Wanting Recognition, Going Along, Striving for Perfection and the elevated Softness scale. To date, there is little if any research on these personality lifestyle attributes 110


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

that researchers have reported that have indicated any biopsychosocial symptomology/psychological disturbances that might impact the parent’s interactions with children in a negative way (Curlette et al., 1993; Eckstein & Kern, 2009). Parents with these lifestyle personality attributes, particularly drive for success and reassurance from others on a job well done (WR), structure-focused and conflict-avoiding approach (GA), self-discipline, good problem-solving and stress-coping skills (P) and optimism (S), would be ideal candidates to be targeted to lead parenting groups or be involved in careers related to dealing with families for guiding parents to discover alternative parenting methods. As for the findings related to the authoritarian parenting and lifestyle dynamics we propose some additional insights. The lifestyle personality attributes of Wanting Recognition, Being Cautious, and Harshness related to the authoritarian parenting style may indicate a parent who experienced little effective role modeling on how to be a good parent, may have been exposed to psychological or emotional abused in the family and overall viewed their family as an unsafe and unpredictable family setting (BC and H). As a result of these experiences the individual may have selected the authoritarian parenting style because they viewed it as a more predictable parenting strategy. Baumrind (1971) claims this model as high on control and obedience. However, the findings showed that the parents who viewed themselves as authoritarian also possessed lifestyle personality attribute that could provide them with the resources to change as reflected in the significant finding of the Wanting Recognition scale. This scale is indicative of a person who may have the willingness to listen to others’ opinions, seeks to please others and is susceptible to being influenced by others who validate their actions in social settings. Therefore these parents would be open to considering other ways of parenting.

LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND IMPLICATION The first limitation of the study which impacts the generalizability of the study was that it included a predominant number of mothers who volunteered for the study. Thus, it is important that future studies employ more heterogeneous sample. Second, the coefficient of agreement 111


indicated lower test-retest stability than expected on the HELPS scales of Entitlement and Striving for Perfection. In that this is the first study that analyzed the supporting scales we must also caution the reader that the five supporting scales of the BASIS-A need to be subjected to additional research so as to confirm the coefficient of agreement correlations as it related to the appropriate cut off scores on these scales. Third, the study involved the use of retrospective, self-report data which could have the impact on the linkages between constructs explored. There is some evidence that when issues, which are under investigation, are important to an individual, parental preferences are more likely measured than actual parenting styles (Metsapelto & Pulkinnen, 2002; Olsen et al., 1999). Therefore, future research would benefit from both multi-method and multi-informant approach (e. g. a measure of a social desirability and/ or observational data might be included). And finally, Individual Psychology lifestyle and parenting styles could be enriched by including additional biopsychosocial variables in the research design. Because of that, several other factors, which could work as mediators or moderators for the interplay of lifestyle and parenting, should be taken into account in future investigations (e. g. parental gender, age, educational level, sense of competence, intergenerational transmission of parenting patterns, child’s personality and behavior; De Haan et al., 2009; Kitamura et al., 2009; Latzman et al., 2009; Oliver et al., 2009). Regardless of these limitations, the current research was the first to be conducted with a Lithuanian sample to explore the associations between Individual Psychology lifestyle and parenting styles. We propose that future researchers could explore this topic more thoroughly with additional variables and samples. Some further questions need to be answered in future studies to expand the findings of the present study. For example, would the results be similar with one parent families? Would Lithuanian adolescents view parenting styles of parents similar as to those reported by parents in the present study? Would the results be different related to lifestyle and parenting styles with parents who were only children in their family of origin? It would be interesting to assess if the findings of this study would be similar with a predominant male sample. It would also be of interest to include additional biopsychosocial variable so as to more clearly isolate other characteristics of the authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. 112


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

CONCLUSION Our study has provided further understanding of the interrelatedness of Individual Psychology lifestyles and parenting styles as proposed by Baumrind (1971). The main objective was to explore the association between lifestyle personality attributes and parenting styles a Lithuanian parent sample and the findings supported the relationship. When the results of this study were compared to previous research studies in North America, only some modest similarities were found. This would suggest that additional research is required to more clearly identify the interplay of cultural and biopsychosocial variables related to parenting an Individual Psychology lifestyle dynamics. Though future research should include a more heterogeneous samples, multi-method empirical designs and a significant number of other biopsychosocial factors, we assert that this study gives empirical evidence of the interplay between the personality construct of lifestyle proposed in the theory of Individual Psychology by Alfred Adler and parenting styles based on the work of Baumrind’s parenting model and adds to theoretical models that have been used to explore the constructs of personality and parenting styles.

References Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 2, 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. doi:10.2307/1129836. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.844. Cekanavicius, V., Murauskas, G. (2009). Statistika ir jos taikymai III. [Statistics and its practices III]. Vilnius: TEV. Cheah, Ch. S. L., Leung, Ch. Y. Y., Tahseen, M., Schultz, D. (2009). Authoritative parenting among immigrant Chinese mothers of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 311-320. doi: 10.1037/a0015076. Curlette, W. L., Wheeler, M. S., Kern, R. M. (1993). BASIS-A Inventory Technical Manual. United States of America: TRT Associates, Inc. De Haan, A. D., Prinzie, P., Dekovic, M. (2009). Mother’s and Father’s Personality and Parenting: The Mediating Role of Sense of Competence. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1695-1707. doi: 10.1037/a0016121. 113


Desjardins, J., Zelenski, J. M., Coplan, R. J. (2008). An investigation of maternal personality, parenting styles, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 587-597. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.020. Dinkmeyer Sr., D., McKay, G., Dinkmeyer Jr., D. (1997). The Parent’s Handbook. Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. USA: STEP Publishers, LCC. Dreikurs, T., Soltz, V. Laimingi vaikai. Iššūkis tėvams [Children: Challenge to Parents] Vilnius (Lithuania): VAGA. Eckstein, D. G., Kern, R. (2009). Psychological Fingerprints. USA: Kendall Hunt Pub Co. Evans, J. (2005). Parenting styles and important variables: Extensions of Baumrind’s research. Retrieved from http://people.colgate.edu/jevans/EDUC551/ Word%20Documents/EDUC204/Parenting%20Styles%20Paper.doc. Fan, X., Thompson, B., Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56-83. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540119. Frey, M., Kern, R. M., Snow, J., Curlette, W. L. (2009). Lifestyle and Transformational Leadership Style. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 65, 212-240. Frey, M. R., Snow, J. N. (2005). The Personality Construct of Entitlement: An Intervention for Decreasing Attrition in Parent Education Groups. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 61, 161-173. Gfroerer, K., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L. (2004). Research Support for Individual Psychology’s Parenting Model. Journal of Individual Psychology, 60, 379-388. Gfroerer, K. P., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L., White J., Jonyniene, J. (2011). Parenting Style and Personality: Perceptions of Mothers, Fathers, and Adolescents. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 67, 57-73. Greenspan, S. (2006). Rethinking“Harmonious parenting”using a three-factor discipline model. Child Care in Practice, 12, 5-12. doi: 10.1080/13575270500526212. Hubbs-Tait, L., Kennedy, T. S., Page, M. C., Topham, G. L., Harrist, A. W. (2008). Parental feeding practices predict authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 108, 1154-1161. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.008. Huver, R. M. E., Otten, R., de Vries, H., Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Personality and parenting style in parents of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 395-402. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.07.012. Kern, R. M., Gormley, L., Curlette, W. L. (2008). BASIS-A Inventory empirical studies: Research findings from 2000 to 2006. Journal of Individual Psychology, 64, 280309. Kern, R. M., Jonyniene, J. (in press). Psychometric Properties of the Lithuanian Version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families. Kern, R. M., Jonyniene, J. (2011, July). Psychometric properties of the Lithuanian version of the parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire (Psdq): criterion114


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

related validity. Paper presented at 12th European Congress of Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey. Kitamura, T., Shikai, N., Uji, M., Hiramura, H., Tanaksa, N., Shono, M. (2009). Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Style and Personality: Direct Influence or Mediation? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 541-556. doi: 10.1007/s10826-009-9256-z. Kochanska, G., Clark, L. A., Goldman, M. S. (1997). Implications of Mothers’ Personality for Their Parenting and Their Young Children’s Developmental Outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65, 387-420. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494. ep9708305699. Kotchick, A. B., Forehand, R. (2002). Putting Parenting in Perspective: A Discussion of the Contextual Factors That Shape Parenting Practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 255-269. doi: 10.1023/A:1016863921662. Latouf, N. C. D. S. (2008). Parenting styles affecting the behavior of five-year olds (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa. Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., Clark, L. A. (2009). Predicting parenting practices from maternal and adolescent sons’ personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 847-855. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.004. Liesiene, J. (2010, April). Psychometric properties of BASIS-A: Lithuanian Version. Paper presented at International Young Scientists’ Conference, Siauliai, Lithuania. Liesiene, J., Endriulaitiene, A., Buksnyte, L., Gustainiene, L., Kern, R. (2010). Predicting Work Attitudes and Turnover Intentions Among Officers: The Importance of Adlerian Personality Attributes. Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal, 12, 41-58. doi: 10.4026/1303-2860.2010.142.x. Lundberg, M., Perris, C., Adolfson, R. (2000). Family Environment and Personality: Perceived Parenting and the Role of Personality. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 267-274. doi: 10.1002/1099-0879(200010)7:43.3.CO;2-J. McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., De Lisi, R. (2007). Perceptions of family relations when mothers and fathers are depicted with different parenting styles. The Journal of Generic Psychology, 168, 425-442. doi: 10.3200/GNTP.168.4.425-442. Metsapelto, R. L., Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality Traits and Parenting: Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience as Discriminative Factors. European Journal of Personality, 17, 59-78. doi: 10.1002/per.468. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self-esteem, depression, and life-satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 39-47. doi: 10.1007/ s10826-006-9066-5. Peluso, P. R., Peluso, J. P., Buckner, J. P., Curlette, W. L., Kern, R. (2004). An Analysis of the Reliability of the BASIS-A Inventory Using a Northeastern and Southeastern U.S. Sample. Journal of Individual Psychology, 60, 294-307. 115


Peluso, P., Stoltz, K., Belangee, S., Frey, M., Peluso, J. (2010). A confirmatory factor analysis of a measure of the Adlerian lifestyle. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66, 152-165. Pong, S., Johnston, J., Chen, V. (2010). Authoritarian parenting and Asian adolescent school performance: Insights from the US and Taiwan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 62-72. doi: 10.1177/0165025409345073. Popkin, M. (1993). Active Parenting Today. Marietta, GA: Active Parenting. Prinzie, P., Stams, G. G. J., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., Belsky, J. (2009). The Relations Between Parents’ Big Five Personality Factors and Parenting: A MetaAnalytic Review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351-362. doi: 10.1037/a0015823. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., Hart C. H. (2001). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). In Perlmutter, B. F., Touliatos, J., Holden, G. W. (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques, 1, (p. 319321). Thousand oaks: Sage. Oliver, P. H., Wright Guerin, D., Coffman, J. K. (2009). Big five parental personality traits, parenting behaviors, and adolescent behavior problems: A mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 631-636. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2009.05.026. Olsen, S. F., Martin, P., Halverson, C. F. (1999). Personality, Marital Relationships, and Parenting in Two Generations of Mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 457-476. doi: 10.1080/016502599383919. Smith, M. (2010). Good parenting: Making a difference. Early Human Development, 86, 689-693. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.08.011. Snow, J. N., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L. (2001). Identifying Personality Traits Associated With Attrition in Systematic Training for Effective Parenting Groups. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9, 102-108. doi: 10.1177/1066480701092003. Wheeler, M. S., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L. (1993). Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success-Adult Form (BASIS-A) Inventory. Highlands, NC: TRT Associates.

LIETUVOS TĖVŲ, AUGINANČIŲ 6–12 METŲ VAIKUS, GYVENIMO STILIAUS INDIVIDUALIOSIOS PSICHOLOGIJOS POŽIŪRIU SĄSAJOS SU VAIKO AUKLĖJIMO STILIUMI Jolita Jonynienė, Roy M. Kern Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva

Santrauka. Problema. Nors mokslinėje literatūroje nemaža tyrimų, pagrindžiančių tėvų asmenybės ir vaikų auklėjimo sąsajas, dauguma jų gana riboti. Juose dažniausiai remiamasi Didžiojo penketo asmenybės savybių modeliu, analizuojama vaikų auklėjimo psichopatologija ar neigiami aspektai, o tyrimo imtis neretai sudaro paauglių tėvai. 116


2012, 11, 89–117 p.

Tyrimo tikslas. Tyrimu siekta papildyti mokslinę literatūrą, nustatyti sąsajas tarp Lietuvos tėvų asmenybės arba gyvenimo stiliaus, kaip teigiama Individualiojoje psichologijoje, bei vaikų auklėjimo stiliaus pagal Dianą Baumrind. Metodikos. Tyrimo metodais pasirinktos adleriškos tarpasmeninės sėkmės skalės (Versija suaugusiesiems; BASIS-A; Wheeler, Kern, Curlette, 1993) bei Vaiko auklėjimo stilių ir dimensijų klausimynas (Trumpoji versija; PSDQ-Short Version; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, Hart, 2001). Tyrime dalyvavo 615 tėvai iš septynių Lietuvos miestų, bet tyrime panaudoti tik 577 tiriamųjų duomenys. Rezultatai ir išvados. Duomenų analizė atskleidė, kad dauguma gyvenimo stiliaus temų yra susijusios su autoritetiniu ir autoritariniu vaiko auklėjimo stiliais pagal D. Baumrind. Nustatyta, jog prognostinės vertės autoritetiniam ir autoritariniam auklėjimo stiliams turėjo Priklausymo / Socialinio intereso, Atsargumo, Pripažinimo siekio bei Šiurkštumo, Perfekcionizmo, Švelnumo skalės. Vis dėlto tyrimo rezultatus palyginus su Šiaurės Amerikos autorių tyrinėjimais, panašumų nustatyta nedaug. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: asmenybė, Baumrind, gyvenimo stilius, individualioji psichologija, vaiko auklėjimo stilius.

The authors thank Raimundas Vaitkevičius and Aušra Saudargienė for their valuable help in the statistical analysis. Received: 10 04 2012 Accepted: 15 09 2012

117