parenting and family socialization

In: Socialization: Theories, Processes and Impact Editors: Ethan L. Anderson and Sophia Thomas

ISBN: 978-1-62081-877-0 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

The exclusive license for this PDF is limited to personal website use only. No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted commercially in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Chapter 3

PARENTING AND FAMILY SOCIALIZATION WITHIN A CULTURAL CONTEXT Stacey P. Raj and Vaishali V. Raval Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, US

ABSTRACT Socialization is an ongoing process of social interaction through which children become functional members of a society. What it means to be a functional member in a given society, however, depends on the broader socio-cultural context. Goals of socialization and parenting practices used to accomplish these goals vary across cultural groups, and parents and other caregivers play a particularly influential role in the socialization process. Much of the psychological research concerning parents’ contribution to their children’s functioning is conducted with White middle-class families in United States and other Western societies, and little is known about parenting and socialization approaches in non-Western regions where a majority of the World‘s population resides. This chapter begins with a discussion of the relevance of cultural context in understanding parenting and socialization, and outlines a theoretical model to conceptualize the influence of culture on parenting and socialization. The chapter describes parental socialization approaches in two major non-Western countries, India and China (and immigrants from these countries elsewhere), and outlines directions for future research in the field of parental socialization across cultures.

PARENTING AND FAMILY SOCIALIZATION WITHIN A CULTURAL CONTEXT Culture is a powerful influence in our lives, affecting how we view the world (Cox, Lobel, and McLeod, 1991) and how we raise our children (e.g., Julian, McKenry, and McKelvey, 1994; Triandis, 1989). Psychological research on parenting has generally focused on the experiences of middle class White families in United States (US) and other Western countries (i. e., UK) , and culturally diverse parenting and family socialization practices have been compared unfavorably to this perceived norm (Hulei, Zevenbergen, and Jacobs, 2006;

58

Stacey P. Raj and Vaishali V. Raval

Kim and Wong, 2002). There is evidence that socialization goals and practices vary among people from different cultural groups (e.g. Hulei et al., 2006), and that normative parenting behaviors seen in White middle-class families may not be adaptive (Julian et al., 1994) or appropriate (Keats, 2000) among other groups. Given that over 60% of the world‘s population live in Asia (United Nations, 2009), socialization practices of White middle-class families in the US are clearly not the norm, and research addressing parenting in this region is vital. In addition, development in technology, economics, tourism, and mass media in the last thirty years have led to changes in families living in Asian societies (Georgas, 2006) and there is a need for contemporary research focusing on the role of culture in the ―modern Asian‖ milieu (Keats, 2000, p. 343). Socialization is an ongoing process of social interaction through which children become functional members of a society. What it means to be a functional member in a given society, however, depends on the broader socio-cultural context. Parents and other caregivers play a particularly influential role in socializing children and they accomplish this through encouraging behaviors and attitudes that are needed to function adaptively in their community. This chapter presents an overview of two predominant Asian worldviews, and examines the relationship between culture, parent socialization goals and behaviors, and child outcomes. Recognizing ―the importance of socially defined and contextually situated meaning‖ (Kağitçibaşi, 1996, p. 20), Indian and Chinese socialization practices are described in the context of wider worldviews and more specific parenting ethnotheories influencing parenting behaviors and perceptions of successful child socialization. The overarching purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with a context for understanding Indian and Chinese parenting and childhood socialization. This chapter begins with an overview of a number of cultural conceptual models that address the impact of culture on human development and socialization. This is followed by an introduction to the Hindu and Confucian worldviews, and background on the role that parents and community play in the life of a developing child. Next, this chapter introduces parenting ethnotheories and examines how culture guides parenting behaviors and socialization goals of Indian and Chinese parents. Praise and corporal punishment are then discussed in greater detail, with attention to the function of these practices in child socialization. The chapter closes with an analysis of gaps in the literature and suggestions for future research.

CULTURAL MODELS Cultural models of the self present ways of conceptualizing differences between people from different cultural groups. While these models generally propose broad fundamental differences between cultural groups, these models recognize that there are differences within cultural groups pertaining to socioeconomic class, religion, and region (i.e., urban versus rural residence) that may ascribe to the same cultural model (Keller et al., 2006). In psychology, among the more cited and known models include Triandis‘ (1996, 2001) conceptualization of individualism and collectivism, and Markus and Kitayama‘s (1991) independent and interdependent selfhood. According to Triandis (1996, 2001) individualism and collectivism are cultural syndromes that highlight profound differences between people from different cultural groups.

Parenting and Family Socialization within a Cultural Context

59

In individualistic cultures, each individual member of society generally functions independently from other group members and aspires to achieve individual goals. In contrast, individuals in collectivist cultures generally value relationships and interdependence, and work together for the common good. Along the lines of Triandis‘s (1996, 2001) conceptual model, Markus and Kitayama (1991) developed a model to describe and explain how people from different cultural groups construe themselves and others. Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed two culturally determined ways of construing the self (i.e., independent and interdependent) that influence individual psychological processes. Features associated with the independent self-construal include viewing the self as separate from the larger social context, being self- promoting, engaging in a direct communication style, and making appraisals of the self by social comparison with others. The interdependent self-construal, on the other hand, emphasizes connecting with other people, supporting others‘ goals, maintaining self-restraint, and engaging in an indirect communication style (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A similar conceptualization was introduced by Shweder and Bourne (1984) that distinguished between the egocentric and sociocentric self. Within psychological literature, Triandis‘ (1996, 2001) collectivist syndrome and Markus and Kitayama‘s (1991) interdependent self-construal have been used to define psychological processes and relationships in Asian societies (Thompson and Virmani, 2010). Both conceptual models situate culture as a core societal value and both are helpful when looking at values and norms of cultural groups (Cooper and Denner, 1998). Although useful, these models have been criticized for not capturing the true heterogeneity of cultural groups and for failing to address changes in societies brought about by development and globalization (Thompson and Virmani, 2010). The impact of ecological factors on socialization practices are increasingly pertinent (Hill, 2006) and neither Triandis‘ nor Markus and Kitayama‘s conceptual models address ecological contributions. Contemporary conceptualizations of culture focus on adaptation and bidirectional relationships between the individual and context (Cooper and Denner, 1998). Conceptual models based on this approach that are frequently cited in psychological literature include models proposed by Kağitçibaşi (1990, 2005), Bornstein and Cheah (2006), and Keller et al. (2006). Partly in recognition of socioeconomic development and movement from rural to urban communities taking place in Asian communities, Kağitçibaşi (1990) proposed a qualitatively different third cultural construct to supplement the individualist-collectivist /independentinterdependent model in these developing countries. This third construct, the autonomy-relatedness, refers to a family model that promotes both an autonomous orientation with respect to material goods and psychological interdependence within the family (Kağitçibaşi, 2005). Kağitçibaşi (1996) argued that in traditional farming communities in Asia, both material and emotional interdependence were salient because the family unit needed to work together for basic survival. As families move into urban areas, material interdependence becomes less important, though psychological or emotional interdependence continues, resulting in a family model where material interdependence is less salient though psychological interdependence continues to be valued. Bornstein and Cheah‘s (2006) approach incorporates the impact of the ecological context and the interrelatedness between the different systems. Their theory, which is based on

60


Bronfenbrenner‘s (1986) ecological systems model, views the individual as functioning within multiple systems, with multidirectional interaction between the various levels of systems and the individual. The microsystem of the parent and child is central to the ecological model, and this relationship is seen to function within larger systems such as the mesosystem consisting of immediate family influence, including the child‘s relationships with parents, siblings, and peers. This mesosystem in turn operates within an exosystem that includes the influence of extended family, neighbors, parental work place, and mass media. Finally these systems are all embedded within a macrosystem that encompasses broader issues such as values, beliefs, socioeconomic status, legal issues, and culture. In this model, culture is seen as a part of the all-encompassing system that influences (and is influenced by) the parent-child relationship that lies at the heart of the system (Bornstein and Cheah, 2006). Similarly, Keller‘s eco-cultural model of child development is rooted in the idea that psychological processes are tied to the demands of the eco-cultural and socioeconomic factors salient to a given community. Simply put, the psychosocial environmental structure, socioeconomic factors, and population factors (e.g., birthrate, density, etc.) all influence parenting socialization strategies and thereby influence child development (Keller, 2007). Cultural models of independence, interdependence, or autonomy-relatedness influence socialization goals parents have for their children which are reflected in parenting ethnotheories (Keller et al., 2006). For example, parents living in individualistic cultures are apt to value socialization goals that emphasize independence and autonomy, as these characteristics will prepare their children to function as effective members of an individualist society. Parents in collectivist communities on the other hand, are likely to value collectivist socialization goals that emphasize harmony and interdependence and use parenting behaviors and strategies that promote these goals (Rudy, Grusec, and Wolfe, 1999). While broad cultural models likely influence socialization goals, within culture differences exist and not all families living in the same communities may ascribe to the same goals (Keller et al., 2006). For example, Keller et al. (2006) found that 25% of mothers in rural Gujarat, India identified with an autonomous-related model more than the interdependent model they were hypothesized to identify with. Aside from within culture differences, factors such as socioeconomic status (Leyendecker, Harwood, Comparini, and Yalçinkaya, 2005), rural or urban dwelling, and child gender also impact parenting and socialization goals (Hasketh, Zheng, Jun, Xin, Dong, and Lum 2011). Figure 1 depicts a conceptual model we propose to understand the influence of culture on parenting and socialization. As depicted, broad cultural models (e.g., autonomy, relatedness, and autonomous-related) and religious worldviews (i.e, Hinduism and Confucianism) influence parenting ethnotheories which in turn influence parents‘ socialization goals and practices. Demographic factors such as socioeconomic status, immigration status, and rural or urban dwelling also impact parents‘ socialization goals and practices. Child outcomes are most closely associated with parents‘ socialization goals and practices and child characteristics such as temperament, gender, and their perceptions of parenting they receive can directly impact parents‘ socialization goals and child outcomes.


61

Figure 1. Conceptual model to understand the influence of culture on parenting and socialization.

WHY STUDY SOCIALIZATION PRACTICES ACROSS CULTURES While research in developmental psychology over the past 50 years has focused much attention on parenting and socialization practices, by and large, this research has focused on White middle-class families in the US, UK, and other Western countries (Gershoff et al., 2010). Research to date support the notion that parenting socialization practices and beliefs are influenced by cultural values (e.g., Bornstein and Cheah, 2006; Gershoff et al., 2010). Cultural factors define normative parenting socialization behaviors (Dwairy, 2010) and it follows that parenting behaviors considered normative in one cultural context may be construed as abnormal in another (Keshavarz and Baharudin, 2009). In addition, factors affecting child development trajectories in one society may be different from another (Bradley and Corwyn, 2005). To illustrate this point, Baumrind‘s authoritarian parenting style, characterized by high behavioral control and low warmth, has been linked with poor child outcomes such as low self-esteem, behavior problems, and low academic achievement among White middle-class children and adolescents in the US (Lieber, Fung, and Leung, 2006). Though consistently linked with less desirable outcomes among White middle-class families in the US, studies using Asian samples have generally not found the same detrimental impact of authoritarian parenting. For example, authoritarian parenting was associated with higher academic achievement in Chinese children in Hong Kong (Leung, Lau, and Lam, 1998) and was not associated with lower self-esteem among Asian immigrant children living in Canada (Rudy and Grusec, 2006). According to Lieber et al. (2006), differential outcomes of parenting style

62


in different cultural groups are consistent with models presented by Bronfrenbrenner (1977) and Harkness and Super (1993) that emphasize the broader context of cultural and societal influences on parenting, socialization goals, and child outcomes. Parenting styles and behaviors are means through which parents socialize their children to function competently in their community, and an authoritarian parenting style may serve different functions in collectivist and individualist cultures. While authoritarian parenting in individualist cultures may be associated with parental power and may not be consistent with the goal of socializing children to be autonomous, authoritarian parenting behaviors in collectivist families promote socialization goals that encourage respect of elders and the inhibition of personal needs, both of which are valued in collectivist societies (Rudy, Grusec, and Wolfe, 1999). In addition, mothers of young children in India and China who valued filial piety were more likely to report using practices commonly associated with authoritarian parenting (Rao, McHale, and Pearson, 2003). This parenting style may be more conducive to promoting filial piety, and thus be in accord with parents‘ socialization goals and cultural norms and values in India and China. Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, and Farah (2006) proposed that the different outcomes of authoritarian parenting in different societies are a function of local socio-cultural norms. Dwairy et al.‘s (2006) inconsistency hypothesis posits that parenting style which is consistent with the socio-cultural milieu does not lead to detrimental child outcomes. For example, authoritarian parenting is consistent with the Arab cultural environment and is therefore not associated with negative outcomes as is seen in White middle-class American youth (Dwairy et al., 2006). This theory is supported by the Lansford et al. (2005) finding that perceived normativeness of physical punishment moderated the relationships between parents‘ use of physical punishment and child behavior problems across a multinational sample of six countries that included India and China. The relationship between parenting and child outcomes may be influenced by the child‘s perception of whether various parenting behaviors are normal and common in their community or not (Baumrind, 1996; Dwairy, 2010; Gershoff et al., 2010). When parenting behaviors are perceived as normal, children are less likely to take offence to them (Gershoff et al., 2010). Parenting practices perceived to be non-normative, however, may be rejected by the child and thus be ineffective. For example, high parental control, which is commonly seen in collectivist societies such as Japan and Korea, may be perceived by children as ―normal and therefore good‖ (Kağitçibaşi, 1996, p. 21). Along these same lines, while Turkish adolescents report experiencing more parental control than White middle class American adolescents, adolescents from both groups reported receiving similar levels of parental affection (Kağitçibaşi, 1970) suggesting that parental control may be normative among the Turkish sample and therefore not seen as a reflection of parental rejection. It is also important to consider that constructs such as authoritative and authoritarian parenting that are derived primarily based on research with White middle-class families in the US may not be relevant to understanding parenting in other cultural groups. For instance, Chao (1994) suggests that although Chinese parenting may appear similar to authoritarian parenting style, it is better understood in the context of chiao sun or child training. Raval, Ward, Raval, and Trivedi (2012) found that authoritative and permissive parenting scales of a widely used self-report measure of parenting style did not demonstrated adequate construct validity and reliability in samples from urban India, questing the cultural relevance of these parenting styles.


63

PREDOMINANT WORLDVIEWS INFLUENCING INDIAN AND CHINESE PARENTING Asia, the world‘s largest continent is home to over 4 billion people (World Bank, 2012a,b) living in 48 countries. Asia is home to India and China, which are the two most populous countries with a population of 1.2 billion in the former and 1.3 billion in the latter (World Bank, 2012a,b). In spite of their large population and global presence, published research on parenting and child socialization in India and China in peer-reviewed English language journals is limited. An understanding of Hindu and Confucian worldviews that influence Indian and Chinese parenting, respectively, is important when examining Indian and Chinese parenting socialization goals and behaviors (Rao, McHale, and Pearson, 2003). While Hindu and Confucian worlviews impact socialization practices in Asia, it is important to note that there are vast religious, cultural, and economic diversity within both countries that also influence parenting and socialization behaviors. Thus, this chapter should be read with the recognition of the vast diversity not just amongst peoples considered Asian, but also amongst more distinct cultural groups such as Indian and Chinese parents. Hinduism is the predominant religion in India and over 80% of Indians identify themselves as Hindu (Office of the Indian Registrar, 2001). In India, Hindu practices and beliefs influence all aspects of daily life including parenting socialization practices and beliefs (Sarawasthi and Ganapathy, 2002). While other religious worldviews (i.e., Islam, Sikh) influence parenting in India, we focus on Hinduism due to its predominance. The Hindu view of Varna Ashram guides Hindu family life (Pandey, 2006), and children are viewed as born with ―innate predispositions that cannot be altered in a major way by child training and socialization‖ and infants and young children are considered ―divine and near perfect‖ (Saraswathi and Ganapathy, 2002, pp. 79-80). Chinese culture and customs are firmly rooted in Confucianism, and the influence of Confucianism can be seen in societies such as China, Korea, and Vietnam, as well as other major Chinese settlements in Asia, including Singapore and Malaysia (Meyer, 2009). While changes have taken place in the Chinese family, traditional Chinese parenting socialization practices, goals, and beliefs continue to influence Chinese parenting, even among acculturated Chinese American families in the US (Ho, 1989). Although other religious influences (i.e., Buddhism, Christianity) are relevant in China, we focus on Confucianism because of its widespread prevalence. Parenting socialization goals and practices based on the Confucian worldview are rooted in the concept of filial piety, wherein there are strict boundaries between generations, and parents and other elders are respected, honored, and obeyed (Chao and Tseng, 2002; Meyer, 2009). In spite of economic development and corresponding socioeconomic changes in China, the parental reverence aspect of filial piety remain central to Chinese family life (Meyer, 2009). In addition to filial piety, the concept of child training is commonly associated with Chinese parenting. The Chinese term chiao shun reflects Chinese parents‘ belief in their parental duty to train and socialize their child to expected social norms (Chao, 1994). China‘s one-child policy has been of interest to researchers and it is important to note at this juncture that researchers studying the phenomenon of the single child family in China have generally not found evidence of single children being raised in a significantly different manner than children with siblings (Wu, 1996). That said, a difference that has emerged

64


between single and non-single children is that single children are more likely to be fussy eaters and their parents are less likely to use physical punishment with them (Wu, 1996). A central theme of both Hindu and Confucian worldviews is the emphasis on family and interdependence amongst family members (Chao and Tseng, 2002). ―Stated without nuance, the Asian child is seen first and foremost as part of a larger and more important entity called the family, while the child of Western culture is first and foremost an individual‖ (Meyer, 2009, p. 188). Many Asian parents raise children with the goal of developing a child whose identity is rooted within the family (Meyer, 2009).In the context of India and China, maturity is oftentimes demonstrated through continued interdependence within the family (Rubin and Chung, 2006) and it is common for children to depend on their parents into adulthood, with the understanding that in the future, they will care for their aging parents (Ho, 1989). There are a number of similarities between the Hindu and Confucian worldviews, as well as between Indian and Chinese family structures. Traditional Indian and Chinese families follow a patriarchal family system, and both value academic achievement, success, and an ethic of hard-work (Rao et al., 2003). In spite of these broad similarities, there are fundamental differences between the two worldviews that impact parenting socialization goals and behaviors (Rao et al., 2003). In both Hindu and Confucian worldviews, children are perceived as being born innocent and pure (Chao and Tseng, 2002; Saraswathi and Ganapathy, 2002). While both view the newborn child as born naïve, Hindu and Confucian worldviews have different positions on the role of nature (e.g., inborn traits, personality, etc.) and nurture (e.g., environment, parenting, etc.) on children‘s development. Specifically, Confucian teaching recognizes the environment (nurture) as having biggest substantial impact on the developing child (Wu, 1996), while Hindu teaching espouses the role of nature over nurture and the belief that each child is born with certain qualities that will lead to specific traits (Rao et al., 2003). That said, both worldviews recognize ―individual differences as innate endowments‖, but the Chinese worldview is more apt to view these differences as malleable and changeable through effort (Rao et al., 2003, p. 476). The different positions on the contribution of nature and nurture impact parenting ethnotheories of Indian and Chinese parents, and influence socialization goals that parents implicitly or explicitly set for their parenting.

PARENTING ETHNOTHEORIES AND SOCIALIZATION APPROACHES Parents‘ organizing beliefs about the ‗correct‘ way to think and behave forms the basis of parenting ethnotheories. Ethnotheories are often shared among members of cultural groups and include, for example, views on family relationships, good parenting, and desirable personality traits (Harkness, Super, Axia, Eliasz, Palacios, and Welles-Nystrom, 2001; Lamm, Keller, Yocsi, and Chaudary, 2008). Examining parents‘ beliefs and attitudes about child rearing is important for several reasons. First, children are affected not only by their parents‘ socialization behaviors but also by their parents‘ beliefs and attitudes about parenting (Bornstein and Cheah, 2006). Second, societal differences seen in parenting and child outcomes are thought to be associated with parental ethnotheories (Harkness et al., 2001). Third, while all societies share a common emphasis on the parent/ caregiver‘s role in child


65

safety and nurturance, other values and goals differ greatly from one cultural group to the next (Bornstein and Cheah, 2006). There is no one single parenting style common to all Asian parenting, yet there are a number of shared ideals and goals. These similar perspectives include the notion that the family unit is more important that the individual, an emphasis on filial piety, favoring an interdependent and collectivist way of being in the world, and keeping family honor (and avoiding bringing shame to the family) (Hayashino and Chopra, 2008). These general values influence parenting ethnotheories as do more specific values and factors salient to more distinct cultural groups. Indian parenting ethnotheories and socialization approaches. The Hindu emphasis on the importance of nature and not nurture, and in innate qualities of the child (Rao et al., 2003) results in a socialization process that is implicit. Parenting is considered a subtle process through which children learn to voluntarily renounce their personal desires and change their behavior in response to indirect/ implicit messages of others, rather than direct/ explicit commands (Kurtz, 1992). Take for example the process of weaning a baby. Among many White middle-class US mothers, weaning is an explicit process during which the nursing mother completely stops offering her breast to her baby, communicating a clear and direct message that the child no longer has access to the breast and needs to move to solid foods. In some communities in India, however, there is never direct refusal of the breast during weaning, and the mother allows nursing, though reluctantly, and slowly and subtly discourages breast-feeding with the hope that the child would eventually grasp the message (Kurtz, 1992). The implicit aspect of Indian parenting can manifest itself in parenting behaviors that may be considered inconsistent from a Euro-centric worldview, case in point, the weaning of a baby described above. In another example, Trawick (1990) described how a female caregiver in a Hindu upper caste, rural family in Tamil Nadu, was able to direct a child through ―double messages‖ (p. 220) of threatening the child with physical punishment that was usually not carried out. When managing the child‘s temper tantrums, the same caregiver taught the child about undesirability of the child‘s behavior (without threatening the child‘s sense of agency) by smacking and then holding the child affectionately. Much like the emphasis on the community over the individual and respect for elders among families in India (Saraswathi and Dutta, 2010), it is suggested that Indian families in the Diaspora continue to share this value (Paiva, 2008). Based on interviews with Indian, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani mothers of preschool children living in the U.K., Paiva (2008) identified salient themes of South Asian immigrant parenting. According to Paiva (2008), South Asian mothers of young children socialize their children to conform to relational goals, for example, to recognize the needs of others and to please important adults. Aside from the theme of interdependence, many of the South Asian mothers expressed the belief that children under the age of five operated on natural instinct (rather than on intention). The mothers believed that children developed self-control as they got older and reported using distraction to manage their young child‘s unreasonable requests (Paiva, 2008). This view is consistent with the Saraswathi and Ganapathy‘s (2002) observation that Indian parenting in India during infancy is characterized by ―pleasure and nurturance‖ (p. 81) and Rao et al.‘s (2003) description of Indian parenting that emphasizes the role of nature over nurture in child development.

66


Valuing of academic achievement is extremely salient to Indian parenting in India and abroad, and Paiva (2008) suggests that this goal reflects opportunities available to Indian families. For example, while issues related to birth order and a hierarchical family system cannot be altered, socioeconomic status can be improved and Indian families often view education as a means to improve their standing (Paiva, 2008). As one Indian immigrant mother in Paiva‘s (2008) study explained, ―With us this is how it is. Parents considered their pride in such things, whether their child is coming first in class. What happened is that it gets you a good name in society that your child is coming first, doing well at studies, This is what parents are like‖ (p. 198). Academic achievement is seen not just as a reflection of the child‘s efforts but also reflects the family and larger society. There is the expectation for Indian children to respect and obey their parents, and achieve academic success. In return, the Indian parent often makes great sacrifices to advance their child (Saraswathi and Dutta, 2010). While most literature on Indian parenting emphasizes the value on education, it needs noting that this value may not be salient to all Indian families, and socioeconomic status, child gender, and rural or urban residence impact Indian parents‘ views on education. For example, only 43% of parents in rural India reported that they would like their daughter to study beyond the 12th grade while 85% wanted their sons to study beyond this point (PROBE, 1998). Rural Indian parents also reported that advanced education for girls was an unnecessary expense and an impediment to finding their daughters a suitable marriage (PROBE, 1998). Chinese parenting ethnotheories and socialization approaches. In Chinese families, training to instill ―filial piety, maintenance of interpersonal harmony,‖ and achievement motivation starts at an early age (Lieber et al., 2006). Chinese parents identify that their main role as a parent is to socialize their child to the Chinese way of being, and this socialization takes place in a milieu of care and love that reflects parental goals (Chao, 1994; Lieber et al., 2006). In contrast to the Indian parenting belief in the greater influence of nature over nurture , Confucian teaching emphasizes the environment (nurture) as being most important to the developing child (Wu, 1996), and the Chinese worldview is more apt to view characteristics of the child as malleable and changeable through effort (Rao et al., 2003). This emphasis on nurture results in an explicit socialization process that is best understood in the context of chiao shun, or training, which refers to the Chinese parent‘s belief in their duty to train their child to demonstrate expected social norms (Chao, 1994). According to Confucian thought, children develop in stages, and young children are typically indulged until they reach the stage of understanding or dongshi. Training and strict discipline begins once the child reaches the stage of dongshi (Ho, 1986). In Chinese societies, child training is viewed favorably and it is an expected aspect of parenting (Lieber et al., 2006). Although some concepts of Chinese child training overlap with behaviors associated with an authoritarian parenting style, Chinese samples do not show the same negative outcomes of authoritarian parenting seen in White middle-class groups in the US (Lieber et al., 2006). Chinese parenting ethnotheories emphasize the need to socialize children to a standard of conduct valued in the home and society, and Chinese parents are expected to exercise ―control and governance‖ of their children (Chao, 1994, p. 1113). Strict discipline is commonly used with older children (Ho, 1989), and the Chinese child learns that being obedient and making personal sacrifice to help the family is valued, as are behaviors than promote family harmony (Meyer, 2009). In a widely cited paper that is considered by Kim and Wong (2002) as the study that ―underscored the role of culture in parenting‖ (p. 185), Chao (1995) examined Markus and


67

Kitayama‘s (1991) two selfhoods in parenting of Chinese immigrant mothers in the US (interdependent selfhood) and White American mothers (independent selfhood). Chao (1995) conducted structured interviews with these mothers and gathered qualitative data concerning mothers‘ overarching view of childrearing and what mothers considered important for raising their children. A number of unique themes emerged which differentiated the two groups. Most of the White American mothers reported the development of their child‘s self-esteem or selfhood as an aim of parenting while less than 10% of the Chinese mothers identified this as being salient to their role of mother. Many of the Chinese mothers reported making personal sacrifices for their child and emphasized their devotion and dedication to their child. While both White American and Chinese mothers expressed that providing love was important, they differed in their belief on why love was important. Chinese mothers stressed the need to show love in order to develop a lasting and harmonious mother-child bond, while White American mothers reported that love was important to promote their child‘s self-esteem. Chinese mothers in this study also reported encouraging their children to value the importance of education and ensuring that their children received a good education. According to Chinese mothers, the main way their children honor the family was by receiving good grades at school (Chao, 1995). Hindu and Confucian worldviews influence Indian and Chinese parenting ethnotheories and socialization goals, which in turn impact their parenting behaviors. We now examine two discrete parenting behaviors, praise and corporal punishment, in Indian and Chinese parenting. It is important to note that studies of parenting and socialization in India and China have predominantly focused on mothers. Although child-rearing is a socially distributed activity in these countries with older siblings, fathers, and extended family members playing an active role, (Kurrien and Vo, 2004; Roopnarine and Suppal, 2000), given the paucity of research on other caregivers, we focus primarily on mothers who are considered primary caregivers in urban middle-class families (Roopnarine, Talukder, Joshi, and Srivastav, 1990).

USE OF PRAISE AS PART OF SOCIALIZATION Parents around the world share the common goal of equipping their children with the abilities needed to function competently in their respective community (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2007). Parents use a variety of parenting strategies and behaviors to encourage the development of these skills, and the use of praise and corporal punishment are two discrete parenting behaviors that parents may use to socialize their children. Praise and corporal punishment are particularly interesting to examine in a cultural context as cultural differences have been found in the practice of both behaviors, as well as the function they serve in advancing parents‘ socialization goals. For example, in Asia, praise is used to encourage interdependence and obedience, and to socialize the Asian child to interdependent relationships (Wang et al., 2008). In contrast, among White middle-class families in the US, praise is often used to encourage independent behavior and action (Wang et al., 2008) and to promote self-esteem. In addition to serving a different function, praise may also be communicated differently among culturally diverse groups (Wang et al., 2008). In light of limited research on praise and parenting in India and China, studies in the following section includes research conducted in India and China, as well as research carried

68


out with Chinese and Indian immigrant families. While studies using immigrant samples yield important data about cultural differences in parenting, acculturation and immigrant status do impact parenting practices and attitudes, and as a result, immigrant samples should not be considered as representative of their cultures of origin. In addition, immigrant families included in research studies may not be representative of the demographics in their country of origin, as Indian and Chinese families who migrate to the US may come from more urban and affluent backgrounds than the average family in India and China. Examples of differences found between immigrant and non-immigrant parents include differing views on corporal punishment between Indian mothers in India and Indian immigrant mothers in the US (Jambunathan and Counselman, 2002). Lin and Fu (1990) also found differences between parenting practices of parents in Taiwan, and immigrant Taiwanese parents in the US. Specifically, mothers in Taiwan endorsed more parental-control and encouraged greater autonomy in their children than Taiwanese immigrant mothers in the US. While the authors reported that Confucian principles still played a major role in immigrant Taiwanese socialization, there were differences between the immigrant and Taiwanese sample. These differences suggest that immigrant parents may adapt their behaviors (to some degree) in order socialize their children to be able to function in both the Chinese immigrant community in the US and the larger US society. Parental praise as part of socialization in the Indian context. Literature on praise in the socialization of the Indian child is scarce and one recent study to clearly document South Asian mothers‘ views of praise was conducted by Paiva (2008). Indian parents socialize their children to function interdependently (Saraswathi and Dutta, 2010) and to recognize the needs of others (Paiva, 2008). Consistent with these goals and interdependent worldview, South Asian immigrant mothers of preschool children in the UK viewed praise as being a potential hazard to the development of a relational child. Praise was perceived to have the potential to, first, result in a child feeling proud, and, second, diminish the child‘s ability to recognize how their behavior affects others. According to Paiva, although previous studies in India such as those by Anandalakshmi (1978) and Seymour (1983) suggest that Indian parents may avoid praising their children for fear of the ―evil eye‖, this was not mentioned among contemporary immigrant mothers in the UK. Aside from fears of raising a proud child who did not recognize their impact on others, South Asian mothers residing in the UK reported using caution when offering verbal praise to their young children for fear that the child would become ―spoilt‖ (Paiva, 2008, p. 199). Paiva (2008) noted that in her interviews, most of the South Asian mothers, including those who were interviewed in English asked to have the word ―praise‖ described in their first language. Most of the mothers believed that young children did not understand verbal praise and examples of verbal approval gained in the interviews focused on verbally expressing the mother‘s emotion and almost never referring to the child‘s behavior or achievement. Additionally, verbal approval was often expressed to denote the mothers‘ pleasure in her child‘s compliant behavior and the child was labeled ―good‖. For example, one mother shared, ―I give him kisses, seat him on my lap and say, ‗son you obeyed me‘ and I look very happy; that my child is listening to me‖ (Paiva, 2008, p. 199). The communication of approval through physical contact was commonly reported among the mothers interviewed. This physical contact emphasized by the South Asian immigrant mothers was reflected in Trawick‘s (1990) observations of family life in rural South India. For example, in one


69

narrative, Trawick described how one mother‘s displays of physical affection towards her son was intense and generally done in private. Parental praise as part of socialization in Chinese context. According to Kim and Wong (2002), earlier anthropological studies with Chinese samples by Lang (1946) and Wolf (1972) found that Chinese and Taiwanese parents believed that they should not praise their child when the child is present as this could lead to the child thinking that they are good enough and not strive to develop themselves further. In addition, these studies found that Chinese parents offered young children a lot of affection but showed little affection to older children, reporting that showing too much affection would ―spoil‖ the child. While middle-class American parents‘ value self-esteem and see it as their responsibility to encourage their child‘s sense of worth by emphasizing their successes and praising them. Chinese parents, on the other hand, are more likely to emphasize their child‘s failures as a means to encourage performance and continued effort (Ng, Pomerantz, and Lam, 2007). For example, compared to a predominantly White sample of less affluent and affluent American parents, less affluent and affluent Chinese parents residing in Beijing and Hong Kong made more negative comments and fewer positive comments following their child‘s success. Chinese parents also provided more negative than positive statements following their child‘s failure, while American mothers provided similar amounts of positive and negative statements following failure (Ng, Pomerantz, and Lam, 2007). Consistent with the notion that Chinese parents emphasize failure to encourage performance and continued effort, Chinese children in this studied performed better following failure than American children. Aside from different responses to success and failure, Chinese and White American parents differ in the provision of praise in general family settings. By observing dinnertime interactions among Chinese American and White American families, Wang et al. (2008) found that although both groups offered similar amounts of praise to children, the form and function of praise was different. Among Chinese families, ―interdependence-promoting‖ praise was very common and this form of praise was generally not seen in the White American sample. Interdependence-promoting praise refers to praise that is given when a child adheres to parental expectations. This interdependence-promoting praise was often given prior to the Chinese child displaying a desired behavior, and this practice is at odds with the White American practice of providing praise following desired behavior (Wang et al., 2008). Chinese mothers show care for their children by communicating their goals and telling their children what behaviors are expected of them (Wang et al., 2008), enabling the Chinese child to behave in a manner that is consistent with their social milieu. It follows that Chinese parents may praise a child prior to displaying a desired behavior as this praise makes the desired behavior clear and enables the interdependent child to recognize and perform the desired behavior to show respect to their parents (Wang et al., 2008). For example, Wang et al. (2008) described an observation in a Chinese immigrant family where the parents urged their child to sit in a certain chair and praised the child, saying ―good boy‖ before the child complied with the request. Based on Paiva (2008) and Wang and colleagues (2008) descriptions of praise among Indian and Chinese samples, it is apparent that ideals common to both the Hindu and Confucian worldviews were reflected in parents‘ use of praise. In contrast to White American parents who praise children to enhance child self-esteem and autonomy, Indian and Chinese mothers offered praise to denote pleasure in the child‘s compliance and obeying their parents‘ wishes, both of which are consistent with their socialization goals of raising a child who

70


conforms to the norms and values of their society. In addition Chinese mothers responded to success by downplaying the achievement and encouraging more effort and motivation to succeed.

USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS PART OF SOCIALIZATION Culture has a ―prominent proximate influence‖ on parental discipline behavior choices (p. 197) and parents use discipline strategies that reflect their culture‘s unique conceptions of family and parenting (Giles-Sims and Lockhart, 2005). Global research on corporal punishment is increasingly considering the sociocultural context in which corporal punishment occurs and how sociocultural factors such as cultural meanings and ethnotheories influence parenting behaviors (Ripoll-Nunez and Rohner, 2003). Research to date has found differential child outcomes associated with corporal punishment in different cultural settings, highlighting the fact that sociocultural context matters when examining the effects of corporal punishment. Specifically, parenting behaviors that are consistent with the larger social context and socialization goals of a given society are likely to be perceived by children as normative and children (as well as parents) are apt to respond more positively to spanking as a disciplinary strategy if this practice is seen as a reflection of care and concern, and normative within the community (Baumrind, 1997). To illustrate this point, Lansford et al. (2005) examined the relationship between physical punishment and adjustment of children (ages 6 through 17) in 6 countries (i.e., China, India, Kenya, Thailand, Italy, and Philippines). A total of 46 to 60 mother-child dyads in each country participated in the study. Most children and mothers in the sample were considered middle-class in their respective countries and all identified as being members of a major ethnic group in their country. Mothers completed Achenbach‗s (2001) Child Behavior Checklist and a discipline interview that was created for the study. Children completed Achenbach‘s (2001) Youth Self Report and the child version of the researchers‘ discipline interview. Lansford et al. (2005) found that although more regular use of harsh physical punishment was associated with aggressive behavior and anxiety in all children, this relationship was weakest in countries where physical punishment was considered normative. In other words, perceived normativeness of corporal punishment moderated the relationship between physical punishment and negative child outcomes (Lansford et al., 2005). The normativeness of corporal punishment in Asia is further exemplified by social policies operating in these societies. Across the world, 29 countries including Kenya, Norway, Sweden, and Germany have legislature prohibiting corporal punishment of children (both in the home and away) (Global Initiative, 2011), and it is noteworthy that no Asian country is on the list. While some may argue that this may be due to economic circumstances and lack of governmental emphasis on social policy, countries on the list include Hungary, Latvia, and Kenya, whose national economic status are considerable lower than Asian nations such as Japan and Singapore. In an interesting aside, Ember and Ember (2005) reviewed evidence of corporal punishment in almost 200 preindustrialized societies dating from 1926 to 1982 and found that factors such as high levels of social stratification and long-term use of foreign currency were better predictors of corporal punishment than a society‘s emphasis on childhood obedience training.


71

Corporal punishment as part of socialization in Indian context. Though corporal punishment is looked upon favorably by South Asians (Douglas, 2006), there is limited literature assessing prevalence and function of corporal punishment in Indian families. Jambunathan and Counselman (2002) examined attitudes of middle and upper-class Indian mothers of preschool age children who lived in urban settings in the US and in India. The researchers used the Adolescent-Adult Parenting Inventory, which assesses parenting attitudes across 4 domains (i.e., parent child role reversal, empathic awareness, developmental expectations, and belief in corporal punishment). Mothers in India were found to express more favorable attitudes towards corporal punishment than Indian mothers residing in the US. This finding led Jambunathan and Counselman (2002) to suggest that Indian mothers in the US adapted their parenting attitudes and behaviors to the demands of the host culture, and their views on corporal punishment thus became less favorable than Indian mothers in India. Trawick‘s (1990) ethnographic study in rural South India detailed a number of observations of physical punishment. In one vignette, Trawick described how a female caregiver responded to a child‘s tantrum by tapping the child with a stick then hitting the stick on the floor to make a loud noise, before picking up and comforting the child. The use of physical punishment followed by comforting and displays of affection detailed in this exchange may be conceptualized as a means to teach the child without threatening the child‘s sense of agency. Aside from physical punishment, South Asian parents use guilt induction and shaming to encourage desirable behaviors. Many South Asian immigrant mothers in Paiva‘s (2008) study reported using ―facial expressions, guilt, and threats to withdraw affection‖ in order to encourage compliance from their young children (p. 200). Corporal punishment as part of socialization in Chinese context. Chinese parents typically practice strict discipline after children reach the age of understanding or dongshi (Ho, 1986). This strict discipline may assume many forms and physical punishment of children has long been viewed as appropriate and indispensable to child rearing in China (Hester, He, and Tian, 2009). In addition, Confucian teaching emphasizes filial piety and the use physical punishment is seen as a means to promote parent authority and encourage filial piety (Chen, et al., 1998). Research on corporal punishment in China has found differences with respect to location (i.e., rural vs. urban setting) and child gender. In a recent study, Chinese children aged 7 through 13 living in rural settings in China were more likely to report being physically punished by their parents (76.2% rural) than their same age peers residing in urban areas (59.5%) (Hasketh et al., 2011). While boys were more likely to report being physical punished often (12.3% male, 7.7% female), similar percentages of boys and girls reported being physically punished sometimes (62.1% boys, 57.5% girls) (Hasketh et al., 2011) In another study documenting corporal punishment in Chinese samples, Hester et al. (2009) found that 60% of male and 50% of female university students in China reported being physically punished while growing up. Many of the Chinese students held favorable attitudes towards corporal punishment, and most viewed physical punishment as normative and acceptable (65% of the female sample and 74% of the male sample) (Hester et al., 2009). The normativeness and acceptability of corporal punishment was illustrated in respondents‘ narratives, such as the following - ―I am sure that I will [beat my children]. As the old saying goes, beating and scolding are love. It is not good to indulge children. Through beating, it is

72


appropriate to correct their mistake and to remind them it is beneficial to their growth‖ (interview with Jie, a male Chinese student in Hester et al., 2009, p. 410). Emerging research on parenting in different societies clearly documents that the damaging effects of physical punishment on child outcomes is related to the child perceiving physical punishment ―as a form of parental love withdrawal or rejection‖ (Ripoll-Nunez and Rohner, 2003, p. 234). Moreover, the child‘s perception of parental acceptance or rejection moderates the relationship between physical punishment and child outcomes (Ripoll-Nunez and Rohner, 2003). Given the impact of the cultural context of corporal punishment, it is no surprise that differential child outcomes have been seen in cross-cultural studies on physical punishment. Chinese children may not experience the detrimental effects of physical punishment seen in White middle-class American samples as they may perceive this parenting behavior as an indication of their parents‘ affection and care towards them (Simons, Wu, Lin, Gordon, and Conger, 2000).

CONCLUSION The end goal of parenting is to socialize children to function competently in a given society (Kağitçibaşi, 1996) and as this chapter has described, characteristics valued in societies vary. Both Hindu and Confucian worldviews emphasize the child‘s interrelatedness to others and children are raised to function in a collectivist society. Indian and Chinese parenting ethnotheories are influenced by these broader worldviews, resulting in parenting attitudes and socialization practices that reflect these goals. Situating parenting to its context is important as this provides explanations and reasons why parents act and think the way they do. Recognizing the cultural context of parenting and parenting ethnotheories deepens our awareness of different cultures and helps prevent the common bias of comparing parenting of diverse cultural groups to White middle class American norms. Understanding Asian cultural worldviews and differences in parenting and child outcomes is not only important to advance our understanding of child development in the Asian context, but it is also important to life in the US. Many Chinese, Indian, and other immigrant parents live in the US and their parenting behaviors may not be in sync with parenting behaviors of White American families. As a result, immigrant parents may be brought to the attention of child protective services for practices which may not be abusive, yet are not in-line with parenting goals or behaviors of White American parents in the US (Fontes, 2005). As such, a richer understanding of cultural values and parenting goals and attitudes is important for those who work and interact with immigrant families. Although research addressing the impact of culture on development processes and outcomes is expanding, this is still a growing field and many questions remain unanswered (Garcia-Coll, Akerman, and Cicchetti, 2000). With regard to parenting in India and China, a number of specific areas warranting research attention have been identified. First, literature on Asian parenting supports the notion that parenting changes with child‘s age and longitudinal research addressing these changes is needed (Kim and Wong, 2002). Second, parenting practices with boys and girls vary in the global context, and gender issues are particularly salient in India and China. Low male-to-female birth ratios are documented in both countries (e.g., Jha, Kumar, Vasa, Dhingra, Thiruchelvam, and Moineddin, 2006; Lai,


73

2005) and literature on the impact of preferential birth practices on parenting and child development is limited. Third, Asian samples used in cross-cultural research are rarely similar across socioeconomic status (Kim and Wong, 2002), and given large disparity of wealth in India and China, the intersection of socioeconomic status and rural or urban setting on socialization and child outcomes is an important emerging field of study. Fourth, although Indian and Chinese parenting share some similarities, there are fundamental differences between the two. Country specific research may help each nation develop policies and plans that protect and promote the needs of their nation‘s children. Finally, much of the research on parenting in these countries has focused exclusively on mothers. Little is known about socialization behaviors of fathers, older siblings who participate in childcare, extended family members, teachers, peers, and other community members. Studies that include a broad range of socialization agents are needed. In order to advance these areas of research interest, scholars are urged to consider mixed research methods. Researchers examining parenting across different societies have historically placed too much emphasis on using scales and quantitative measures and neglected qualitative research that is needed to understand culture-specific aspects of parenting (Kim and Wong, 2002). Mixed qualitative and quantitative research designs are particularly useful to examine culture and socialization practices (Yoshikawa, Weisner, Kalil, and Way, 2008). Specifically, mixed method designs allow for the integration of quantitative data on frequency of behaviors and beliefs, with qualitative data that provides a context to understand purpose, goals, and meanings ascribed to behavior (Yoshikawa et al., 2008).

REFERENCES Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4), 405-414. Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 176-182. Bornstein, M. H., and Cheah, C. S. L. (2006). The place of "culture and parenting" in the ecological contextual perspective on developmental science. In K. H. Rubin, and O. B. Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations; A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Bradley, R. H., and Corwyn, R. F. (2005). Caring for children around the world: A view from HOME. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(6), 468-478. doi:10.1177/01650250500146925 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742. Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control; authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 45, 11111119. Chao, R. (1995). Chinese and European-American cultural models of the self reflected in mothers' child-rearing beliefs. Ethos, 23, 328-354.

74


Chao, R. and Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Series ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4, Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 5993). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, X., Hastings, P., Rubin, K., Chen, H., Cen, G., and Stewart. S. (1998). Child-rearing attitudes and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 677-686. Cooper, C. R., and Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal and community-specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 559-584. Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., and McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural difference on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. The Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827-847. Douglas, E. M. (2006). Violence socialization in the family and its impact on attitudes about corporal punishment: An international perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 23-30. Dwairy, M. (2010). Introduction to special section on cross-cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment in children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 1-7. Dwairy, M. and Achoui, M. (2010). Adolescents-family connectedness: A first cross-cultural research on parenting, culture, and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 8-15. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., and Farah, A. (2006). Parenting styles, individuation, and mental health of Arab adolescents: A third cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 262–272. Ember, C. and Ember, E. (2005). Explaining corporal punishment of children: A crosscultural study. American Anthropologist, 107(4), 609-619. Fontes, L. A. (2005). Child abuse and culture: Working with diverse families. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Garcia-Coll, C., Akerman, A., and Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences on developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 333-356. Georgas, J. (2006). Families and family change. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. van de Vijver, C. Kağitçibaşi, and Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study (pp. 3-51). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gershoff, E. T., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Zelli, A., Deater-Deckard, K., and Dodge, K. A. (2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Association with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81(2), 487-502. Giles-Sims, J. and Lockhart, C. (2005). Culturally shaped patterns of disciplining children. Journal of Family Issues, 26(2), 196-218. Global initiative to end all corporal punishment of children (2011). States with full abolition. Retrieved from http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html Harkness, S., and Super, C. M. (1993). The developmental niche: Implications for children's literacy development. In L. Eldering and P. Lesemen (Eds.), Early intervention and culture: Preparation for literacy (pp. 115-132). Paris: UNESCO. Harkness, S., Super, C. M., Axia, V., Eliasz, A., Palacios, J., and Welles-Nystrom, B. (2001). Cultural pathways to successful parenting. Newsletter of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development , 1(38), 9-13.


75

Hayashino, D. S. and Chopra, S. B. (2008). Parenting and raising families. In N. Tewari and Alvarez, A. (Eds.), Asian-American psychology: Current perspectives (pp. 317-337). New York: NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hesketh, T., Zheng, Y., Jun, Y. X., Xing, Z. W., Dong, Z. X., and Lu, L. (2011) Behaviour problems in Chinese primary school children. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(8), 733-741. Hester, M., He, J. and Tian, L. (2009), Girls' and boys' experiences and perceptions of parental discipline and punishment while growing up in China and England. Child Abuse Review, 18, 401–413. doi: 10.1002/car.1095 Hill, N. E. (2006). Disentangling ethnicity, socioeconomic status and parenting: Interactions, influences and meaning. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 1(1), 114-124. Ho, D. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1-38). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ho, D. (1989). Continuity and variation in Chinese patterns of socialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51(1), 149-163. Hulei, E., Zevenbergen, A. A., and Jacobs, S. C. (2006). Discipline behaviors of Chinese American and European American mothers. Journal of Psychology, 140(5), 459-475. Jambunathan, S. and Counselman, K. P. (2002). Parenting attitudes of Asian Indian mothers living in the United States and India. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 657-662. Jha, P., Kumar, R., Vasa, P., Dhingra, N., Thiruchelvam, D., and Moineddin, R. (2006). Low male-to-female sex ration of children born in India: National survey for 1.1 million households. Lancet, 367, 211-218. Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., and McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family Relations, 43(1), 30-37. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1970). Social norms and authoritarianism: A Turkish-American comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 444-451. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 135-200). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in a cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403–422. Keats, D. M. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in child development in Asian contexts. CrossCultural Research, 34(4), 339. Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Jensen, H., … Chaudary, N. (2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories: A multicultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(2), 155-172. Keshavarz, S., and Baharudin, R. (2009). Parenting style in a collectivist culture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 66-73. Kim, S. Y. and Wong, V. Y. (2002). Assessing Asian and Asian American parenting: A review of the literature. In, K. Kurasaki, S. Okazaki, and S. Sue (Eds.), Asian American mental health: Assessment methods and theories. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

76


Kurrien, R. and Vo, E. (2004). Who's in Charge? Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families. Journal Of Adult Development, 11(3), 207-219. Kurtz, S. N. (1992). All the mothers are one: Hindu India and the cultural reshaping of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Lai, D. Sex ratio at birth and infant mortality rate in China: An empirical study. Social Indicators Research, 70(3), 313-326. Lamm, B., Keller, H., Yovsi, R., and Chaudhary, N. (2008). Grandmaternal and maternal ethnotheories about early child care. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 80-88. Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., … and Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children's adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76(6), 1234-1246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x Leyendecker, B., Harwood, R., Comparini, L., and Yalçinkaya, A. (2005). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and parenting. In T. Luster T and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 319–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leung, K., Lau, S., and Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A crosscultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172. Lieber, E., Fung, H., Leung, W. L. P., and Leung, K. W. (2006). Chinese child-rearing beliefs: Key concepts and culture sensitive approaches to scale development. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 140-147. Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Meyer, J. (2009). Asian American Confucianism and children. In D. Browning and B. MillerMcLemore (Eds.), Children and childhood in American religions (pp. 180-194). Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Ng, F. F., Pomerantz, E. M., and Lam, S. (2007). European American and Chinese parents' responses to children's success and failure: Implications for children's responses. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1239-1255. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner India (2001). Census India. Retrieved from www.censusindia.gov.in Paiva, N. D. (2008). South Asian parents' constructions of praising their children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13(2), 191-207. doi: 10.1177/1359104507088342 Pandey, J. (2006). India. In J. Georgas, J W. Berry, F. van de Vijver, C. Kağitçibaşi, and Y. H. Poortinga, (Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 362369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. PROBE (1998). Public report on basic education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rao, N., McHale, J., and Pearson, E. (2003). Links between socialization goals and childrearing practices in Chinese and Indian mothers. Infant and Child Development 12, 475492. Raval, V. V., Ward, R. M., Raval, P. H., and Trivedi, S. S. (2012). Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of Parental Authority Questionnaire in urban India. Manuscript under review. Ripoll-Núñez, K. J., and Rohner, R. P. (2006). Corporal punishment in crosscultural perspective: Directions for a research agenda. Cross-Cultural Research, 40(3), 220-249. doi:10.1177/1069397105284395


77

Roopnarine, J. and Suppal, P. (2000). Kakar‘s psychoanalytic interpretation of Indian childhood: The need to emphasize the father and multiple caregivers in the socialization equation. International Journal of Group Tensions, 29(3/4), 349-370. Roopnarine, J. L., Talukder, E., Jain, D., Joshi, P., and Srivastav, P. (1990). Characteristics of holding, patterns of play, and social behaviors between parents and infants in New Delhi, India. Developmental Psychology, 26, 667–673. Rubin, K. H. and Chung, O. B. (2006). Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Taylor and Francis. Rudy, D. and Grusec, J. (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Association with maternal emotion and cognition and children‘s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 68-78. Rudy, D., Grusec, J., and Wolfe, J. (1999). Implications of cross-cultural findings for a theory of family socialization. Journal of Moral Education, 28(3), 299-310. Saraswathi, T. S. and Dutta, R. (2010). India. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Cultural Developmental Science (pp. 465-485). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Saraswathi, T.S., and Ganapathy, H. (2002). Indian parents‘ ethnotheories as reflections of the Hindu scheme of child and human development. In H. Keller, Y.H. Poortinga, and A. Scholmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shweder, R. A. and Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary crossculturally? In R. A. Shweder and R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 194-199). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Simons, R. L., Wu, C-I, Lin, K-H, Gordon, L., and Conger, R. D. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 38(1), 47-79. Tamis-LeMonda, C., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R., and Niwa, E. (2007). Parent‘s goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183-209. Thompson, R. A., and Virmani, E. A. (2010). In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 195-207). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Trawick, M. (1990). Notes on love in a Tamil family. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520. Triandis, H. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415. Triandis, H. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907-924. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009). 2007 demographic yearbook (Report no. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.R/38). New York: United Nations. Wang, Y. Z., Wiley, A. R., and Chiu. C-Y (2008). Independence-supportive praise versus interdependence-promoting praise. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(1), 13-20. doi:10.1177/0165025407084047 World Bank (2012a). Country at a glance: China. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/ en/country/china

78


World Bank (2012b). Country at a glance: India. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/ en/country/india Wu, D. Y. H. (1996). Parental control: Psychocultural interpretation of Chinese patterns of socialization. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the Chinese way (pp. 1-28). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T. S., Kalil, A., and Way, N. (2008). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Developmental Science. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 344-354. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.344