... of this, C10 said that well, my momâs been away and Dadâs been at work, so I had to make sure ... We do have high expectations, the kids all know that.
Youth Sport Parenting Styles and Practices Nicholas L. Holt,1 Katherine A. Tamminen,1 Danielle E. Black,1 James L. Mandigo,2 and Kenneth R. Fox3 1University
of Alberta; 2Brock University; 3University of Bristol The purpose of this study was to examine parenting styles and associated parenting practices in youth sport. Following a season-long period of fieldwork, primary data were collected via interviews with 56 parents and supplemented by interviews with 34 of their female children. Data analysis was guided by Grolnick‟s (2003) theory of parenting styles. Analyses produced five findings: (1) Autonomy-supportive parents provided appropriate structure for their children and allowed them to be involved in decision making. These parents were also able to read their children‟s mood and reported open bidirectional communication. (2) Controlling parents did not support their children‟s autonomy, were not sensitive to their children‟s mood, and tended to report more closed modes of communication. (3) In some families, there were inconsistencies between the styles employed by the mother and father. (4) Some parenting practices varied across different situations. (5) Children had some reciprocal influences on their parents‟ behaviors. These findings reveal information about the multiple social interactions associated with youth sport parenting.
Key Findings Autonomy-Supportive Parenting Styles Thirty-two parents from 18 families consistently used an autonomysupportive parenting style. These parents were highly involved in their children‟s lives. But despite their high level of involvement, autonomy-supportive parents provided few examples of controlling behaviors. For example, Father 9 (F9) was so involved that he was a member of the coaching staff for his daughter‟s team. But he did not try to control his children. Instead, he explained that: There are certain limits and boundaries to what they [my children] can and cannot do. There are expectations of how they should perform. I try to leave decisions up to them, rather than enforcing what they can and can‟t do, should or shouldn‟t do. I try to guide them so that they‟re making the decisions. Autonomy-supportive parents also seemed to place minimal pressure on their children to act in certain ways. F16 said, “We‟re trying to teach [daughter] to take responsibility and control of situations.” The mother (Mother 16; M16) agreed and explained how one day during the summer she involved her daughter in decision making: “I said to her [daughter], „do you want to go rafting? You have to decide by tomorrow, I‟m not pushing you to do anything you don‟t want to.‟ The next day she [daughter] said, „I‟ll regret it [if I do not go rafting], and yeah, I want to go.‟” Referring to her involvement in decision making, their child (Child 16; C16) said that “yeah, Mom and Dad just try to keep me relaxed and not worry about [things] and just encourage me [to make decisions] and give me confidence.” Taken together, these data described several core characteristics of an autonomy supportive parenting style (promoting personal autonomy, providing choice, supporting decision making). Another element of the autonomy-supportive style was providing appropriate structure. It appeared that these parents provided structure in more autonomy granting than in controlling ways. For example, M10 explained that “[We say], „Here‟s the structure, and this is the way,‟ and then try to let them [children] move. . . . Give them a structure and then, let, hopefully let them go.” Her child described that she had learned to be autonomous and take responsibility for herself within the structure that had been created by her parents. When she provided an example in relation to general home environment, she said that she had learned to “spend my money wisely and stuff like that. . . . I like personal responsibility. I would like to do it myself instead of someone doing it for me.” When asked for another example of this, C10 said that well, my mom‟s been away and Dad‟s been at work, so I had to make sure
I got to [soccer] practice and make sure I have food and stuff like that, and follow the schedule so that I don‟t miss something. C10‟s reference to “the schedule” again suggested that she lived in a structured household with clear and consistent guidelines. With further reference to appropriate structure, F29 described his overall parenting styles as “firm but fair,” and his wife elaborated by explaining that they . . . bring structure and lead by the standards that we set out for our children and expectations. So we give them a certain amount of freedom in their own decision making but we like to have a lot of input as well if they need it. Similarly, their child (C29) provided examples that reflected this balance between structure and freedom and the fact that she could learn by her own mistakes. She said, “Say I actually had a [bad] experience, and I didn‟t learn the life lesson sort of example. Then they‟d [parents] tell me it [the life lesson] or remind me the next time maybe.”
Autonomy-Supportive Parenting Practices
Parents who created an autonomy-supportive emotional climate also generally used parenting practices in specific situations that were consistent with this general approach. These parents were able to read their child’s mood and engaged in open bidirectional communication. This exchange between two parents revealed a consistency between their parenting practices. F27 said, “Yeah, if I‟m driving her home from soccer . . . It‟s almost like she‟ll ask that [feedback] . . . I know that you‟re not supposed to talk about that, any specifics on the ride home . . . that‟s my one fault, I can‟t help it.” However, rather than this being a “fault” of the father per se, his child actually reported that “Well, I like getting feedback on what I‟ve been doing good and bad.” Her parents explained how they read their child and provided feedback on her soccer performances: M27: Between him [husband] and I, we might do that, [and say] “oh, that‟s nice!” but we‟d wait until we‟re one on one with her, she would prefer that, she prefers that, we prefer that. . . . If we didn‟t [provide feedback], then she‟ll often, if she thinks she did something [wrong], then she‟ll bring it up. . . . F27: Usually, try to do the sandwich approach, where you find two good things and one bad, or needs improvement, and go through those after. So you know, yeah, you made two great passes, you took the ball on the line, you fired it up or whatever, but here‟s what you missed. . . . These examples showed that there were open lines of communication, a parenting practice consistent with an autonomy-supportive style. In fact, only three parents who were coded as autonomy-supportive (F3 and M/F32) did not report being able to read their children‟s mood, and only one parent (F8) coded as autonomysupportive did not report being able to engage in open communication. Overall then, autonomy-supportive parents seemed to recognize some of the better times to speak to their child. Furthermore, children‟s willingness to engage in open communication (e.g., asking for feedback) was in stark contrast to some of the closed communication associated with the controlling families (see below).
Controlling Parenting Styles
Thirteen parents (from seven families) were coded as consistently using a controlling parenting style. The typical profile of these families was represented by parents being highly involved in their child‟s life in general and in sport, providing little to no autonomy support, and engaging in controlling behaviors. For example, these parents were involved in their child‟s lives in a manner that undermined the child‟s autonomy. M4 said, We‟re quite strict, we really are. We do have high expectations, the kids all know that. Sometimes we can be hard on them. . . . You can always find things they did wrong. . . . I‟m also not afraid to tell them when [it‟s] something that they need to learn from.
This quote seemed to indicate a controlling style. The mother also revealed how she was not afraid to confront her child, which is another characteristic of a controlling approach. In a similar vein, her husband said, You can‟t win if you don‟t put in the time and effort and practice. And so ten minute [practice] drills. . . . At our house they are non-negotiable, you have to do them. And it will be me or their mom. . . . We both have the same kinds of expectations of them. This quote from F4 referred to how he controlled his child by forcing her to practice at home (the children on the team were expected to practice and perfect three soccer moves by the end of the season). When we asked the child (C4) to reflect on the way she interacted with her parents, she provided this rather bizarre example. She said, “If you do something and maybe don‟t want to tell them [parents] but you realize you have to. . . . Other times, you just lie or something, and then they figure it out, and you are in trouble basically.” This suggests that within the controlling climate created by the parents in this family the child had learned to lie to avoid punishment. Further examples of controlling parenting styles were obtained. M17 said that her daughter was “not allowed to do things that lots of kids are allowed to do. She‟s not allowed to go to the mall. . . . Like we don‟t let her out.” Furthermore, this family controlled their child by removing her bedroom door from its hinges if the child disobeyed their behavioral expectations. This is a controlling behavior likely to induce guilt on the part of the child until the behavior matches the parents‟ expectations.
Controlling Parenting Practices In terms of more specific parenting practices, many of the controlling parents did not appear to have open communication with their child in relation to soccer situations. Eight parents (from five families) were not able to read the child’s mood, and three parents from two families said that “sometimes” they were able to read their child‟s mood. Only four parents from three families clearly reported that they could engage in open bidirectional communication, but this included F4, who said that he could only engage in open communication with his daughter when he was providing positive feedback about soccer. Therefore, the general pattern was that controlling parents were usually able neither to read their child‟s mood nor engage in open bidirectional communication. For example, with reference to providing feedback to his daughter, F2 said, She doesn‟t like it [feedback]. We‟ll try and try and tell her stuff but she doesn‟t like us to do that. She tells us or she‟ll just shut up. [She says], “I don‟t want to talk about that.” So we try to give her feedback on a game or we‟re trying to tell her something [but] she doesn‟t want to listen. His daughter (C2) explained that her parents “try [our emphasis added] . . . to tell me what I did right and wrong [after games]” but later in her interview she said that her parents “should not yell as much and just let [me] play.” One key distinction used to code controlling parenting styles was the presence of control rather than structure. These parents set boundaries in a controlling manner. For example, F22 said that “I think limits and boundaries around the kids [are] very important to us.” However, he then referred to a dance class his daughter had taken and he said, “I made her [emphasis added] stay for like half of the year. I struggled with that one.” This example shows that the father controlled at least one aspect of his daughter‟s behavior. His daughter talked about her dad becoming over-involved during soccer games, which could be interpreted as him making controlling comments. She described a time during the season when her dad was yelling at the referee and she thought, “Oh my gosh, I can‟t believe they‟re doing this. Why me? . . . Why is my parent doing this to me?”
Mixed Parenting Styles
Eleven parents from seven families were coded as having a mixed parenting style, which involved elements of both autonomy support and control. Coding these parents as one style or another would be an example of “forcing” the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Hence, two distinct aspects of a mixed parenting style were identified—inconsistencies between parents‟ style and inconsistencies in parenting practices across situations. Inconsistencies Between Parents’ Style. This category involved one parent
adopting a more autonomy-supportive style and the other was more controlling. For example, F24 said, “Well I‟m pretty . . . flexible is the word. Her mother is a little bit rigid on things but overall quite flexible, but I‟ll pull her [daughter‟s] leash back when she‟s gone too far.” The following example from M20 also reflected some contradiction between her parenting style and the style she thought her husband employed: Interviewer (I): OK, um, and so we‟re moving into some questions about your parenting style. So overall, how would you describe your approach to parenting? M20: [laughing] I‟m the goofball. I: And [name of husband] would be . . . ? M20: [laughing] [He] flips out more easily [laughing]. It‟s not fair to say that when he‟s not here to defend himself! [laughing] I: OK. So, if you had to use a word to describe your parenting style, or the two of you combined, what would it be? M20: Well we‟re opposite. . . . I‟m the goofball and he‟s the one that will sit, like at bedtime they‟ll be, you know, reading and we‟ll be giggling in bed and if we hear [name of husband] coming up the stairs, [gasp] “Dad‟s coming!” [laughing]. These examples reflected the point that some parents perceived they possessed a parenting style that differed from the parenting style their spouse possessed. Inconsistencies in Parenting Practices Across Situations. Adding more complexity
to this issue of consistency, these parents also provided examples whereby they would use autonomy-supportive practices in certain situations, but controlling practices in others. For example, M25 said, “I like to, um, I think it‟s really important that they have space of their own. Like their bedrooms are their sanctuaries. . . . We did a big reno on the house, you know, they picked their colours for their rooms, I didn‟t pick them, they got what they wanted, they, they could set their room up anyway they wanted.” This shows that she involved her children in decision making and gave them autonomy. She went on to say, “I think it‟s important that parents or others aren‟t controlling every aspect of their life and that they have some control over certain aspects of their life,” which again reflected an autonomy-supporting approach. However, she explained that in certain circumstances she would in fact engage in more controlling practices. She said, “. . . like about proper eating, for example. And so, if they want a cookie, yeah they can have a cookie, but they have to have a piece of fruit first. . . . They like to eat at Subway [fast-food sandwich restaurant], they get all vegetables on their sandwich you know. . . . We‟re pretty strict with them.” Hence, it appeared that in some circumstances this mother gave her children more autonomy, but in other circumstances she was more controlling. This example shows how the specific practices used by a parent could vary across situations.
Reciprocal Influence of Children on Parenting Styles and Practices Analyses revealed an unexpected finding indicating that children‟s behavior influenced the styles and practices their parents used among 33 parents from 19 families. The general pattern was that parents adopted a more autonomy supportive style once their children demonstrated that they could take responsibility for their behavior. This may explain why reciprocal socialization was most often reported by autonomy-supportive parents. These findings were based exclusively on the parents‟ data. F10 provided an example of how his children influenced his
(and his wife‟s) parenting style: I‟d say and I‟d have to lump my wife in on this as well. We talk about a lot of things; we‟re fairly big on discipline. [But] we‟ve never had to be overly big on it because with three girls that are filled with common sense we‟ve never had to do too much. . . . I‟m not sure how that relates to soccer but parenting style is pretty laid back as long as everything is working according to plan. Similarly, F20 explained how his daughter had influenced his parenting approach: I guess what I‟ve learned is I‟ve kind of backed off a little bit from that and understanding the fact that it‟s not necessarily the fact that she achieved the goal. I think what I‟m finding as a parent is how we brought the child to that goal is more important. However, there were some examples of parents becoming controlling when they thought they had provided too much freedom for their children. The following quote from M19 exemplified this: I mean [I am] learning with games, like Nintendo, we thought, we didn‟t want to ban anything from the house. Like, some houses there‟s you know, no video games, no guns, you know, not even toy guns, and we didn‟t want to stigmatize those things, we wanted to expose them [our children] to those things that naturally they would [experience]. When we did bring a Nintendo into the house we thought the novelty would wear off. Well, he was like a casino mentality, you know? The whole day, he [my son] would go without food, so we had to put limits on it. . . . We said, “OK, if that‟s the way you‟re going to be when you‟re off [Nintendo], you know what, it‟s going to be a while before you get back on there.” In addition to children influencing the general emotional climate that parents created in the home, we also obtained some (limited) examples of parents learning to changes their soccer-specific parenting practices in response to their child‟s behavior. For example, M6 explained how she had learned to change her own behaviors as a result of her interactions with her children. She said, I‟ve learnt [that] most of the time you don‟t realize how hard you are on your kids. . . . I learned from my youngest son when he was playing soccer and . . . I didn‟t realize he could hear me right and I had said to him “ah come on [son], you can run a little harder get that ball.” He turned around to me and said, “you know, Mom, I‟m working as hard as I can out here, I can‟t work any harder.” And I felt so bad after that, right? And so I thought “oh I won‟t do that again.”
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine parenting styles and practices in youth sport. By adopting a broad perspective and examining multifaceted social interactions, the findings of this study add to the extant youth sport literature (for further discussion of these matters, see Horn & Horn, 2007). Indeed, findings supported the complexity of youth sport parenting and the need to be sensitive to a range of perceptions and behaviors rather than single variables in isolation. The importance of considering youth sport parenting within the social milieu of family life was highlighted. Finally, information about the reciprocal influence of children on their parents‟ parenting styles was revealed and suggests an important area of research. Some parents were highly involved without being controlling, were autonomy supportive, and provided appropriate structure. Alternatively, other parents were highly involved but controlling, did little to support their children‟s autonomy, and provided little appropriate structure. Grolnick (2003), drawing on propositions associated with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), suggested that children from autonomy-supportive families are more self-determined and intrinsically motivated than children from controlling families. This prediction has been supported in the general psychology literature (e.g., Deci, Driver, Hotchkiss, Robbins, & Wilson, 1993). There is also support for the motivational benefits
of autonomy-supportive practices among coaches in youth sport (e.g., Gagné et al., 2003; Goudas et al., 1995) and teachers in physical education classes (Morgan et al., 2005; Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005). Hence, theory and research suggest that autonomy-supportive parenting is more beneficial for enhancing children‟s and adolescents‟ well-being and intrinsic motivation than controlling parenting. However, because we did not assess these child-level outcomes, this interpretation must be treated with caution and provides a direction for future research. Although the majority of data were coded into autonomy-supportive versus controlling parenting styles, a mixed parenting style category was also reported. Two issues were identified. The first issue related to a mother and a father reporting different styles. This highlights a methodological challenge facing researchers. Studies of parenting styles have typically grouped both parents into a predominant style, but if each parent uses a different approach this has implications for measurement. The current study therefore supports the need to disaggregate parenting styles to uncover the unique effects of specific aspects of parenting that may vary between parents (Barber, Bean, & Erickson, 2001; Silk, Morris, Kanaya, & Steinberg, 2003). The second issue referred to inconsistencies in parenting practices used across situations. For example, autonomy-supportive parents sometimes used controlling practices to influence their children‟s behavior. Differences in the specific practices parents employ may be a result of particular situational demands. That is, in certain situations (e.g., talking with their children about nutrition) autonomy-supportive parents may use controlling practices that contrast to their overall style. Such subtle variations between parenting styles/practices reflect the complex social interactions that must be assessed in order to understand the effect of parenting on children‟s development. Again, these findings support the need to disaggregate parenting styles, not only between parents but also across situations (Barber et al., 2001; Silk et al., 2003). An unexpected finding concerned the reciprocal influence of children on their parents. At a general level, Weiss and Hayashi (1995) found that children‟s involvement in gymnastics had positive implications for family interactions. Parents reported that they committed a large amount of time and finances as a result of their children‟s gymnastics involvement, and thought that their children‟s participation positively influenced their attendance at meets, reading sport literature, watching sport on television, and their own physical activity. At a situation-specific level, Holt, Tamminen, Black, Sehn, and Wall (2008) found that parents‟ verbal reactions during soccer games changed in response to aspects of their children‟s performances. Parents experienced empathy through sharing the emotions their children felt in sport, and these emotions appeared to change in relation to dynamic game and contextual circumstances. The current findings extended previous research by revealing that children may actually influence parenting styles and practices.
