Week 1

13Attachment, Parenting, and Families

©Ariel Skelley/Blend Images/Corbis

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, you should be able to:

ሁ Outline how attachment occurs in early infancy through the second year. ሁ Identify two primary types of attachment relationships. Explain the short-term and long-term ben-

efits of secure attachment. ሁ Differentiate among the four parenting styles most often referred to in research. ሁ Discuss academic findings with regard to spanking. ሁ Classify types of childhood maltreatment; elaborate on the long-term consequences of abuse. ሁ Describe different types of family environments and the effects they have on childhood development.

Section 13.1Attachment

Prologue Though Sigmund Freud did not directly study the development of children, he treated his adult patients partly under the assumption that they were perhaps given either too much or too little gratification as infants and young children. Freud treated people hoping that the uncovering of childhood conflicts would lead to healthier adulthood. In his view, though, we never fully recover from psychological demons of childhood (Freud, 1910). Plenty of anec- dotal evidence supports this view; everyone seemingly has a story about how they were affected—good or bad—by their parents or other caregivers. But is it true that early relation- ships have a significant effect on development? The short answer is yes. The longer answer follows next, in this module.

13.1 Attachment Certainly there is an evolutionary advantage for adults to care for and connect emotionally with children. But as explained earlier, since mothers were historically at risk during birth, there is also an evolutionary advantage for any adult to bond with a neonate. And that appears to be the case. It turns out that the closeness that mothers feel toward their newborns is the same feeling that fathers and other adults have, too. Part of the response that both mothers and fathers feel is due to the production of the hormone oxytocin (Gordon, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, & Feldman, 2010). The same response occurs during other “love” behaviors like a hug or a kiss. This initial bond that adults feel is essentially a one-way relationship (Roisman & Groh, 2011). Adults can have a spontaneous emotional connection to another person or even a pet. But it is not the same thing as a mutually sustained two-way relationship like you might develop with a child.

Instead, attachment describes a sustained, developmental (rather than spontaneous) con- nection. It emerges as a result of a close emotional relationship between a child and at least one caregiver, usually a parent. Whereas both genetic and biological foundations govern characteristics related to temperament, attachment behavior is different. Though psychoso- cial attachment has biological and evolutionary mandates to take place, the way it is expressed is almost entirely a function of the social environment. That is not to suggest that children are a tabula rasa with regard to attachment. Instead, available adults, whose pres- ence is independent of infants’ internal states, determine the attachment relationships that children will make.

Remember that children who have sensitive and responsive parents will develop what Erik- son called a basic sense of trust. When infants become mobile, they use their attachment

figures as a secure “base” from which they can explore, seek pleasure, and then return to safety. When children feel securely attached to a parent, they become more autonomous and are more easily comforted in times of distress. This process occurs over the first year or so, as infants gradually develop preferences for certain people. We know that early attachment is essential for normal development.

Critical Thinking Contrary to what many people think, babies do not automatically develop a preference for their biological mothers (or fathers) during the first months of infancy. In what way might this behavior have an evolutionary advantage?

Section 13.1Attachment

John Bowlby (1907–1990) formulated attachment theory to explain how early social experi- ences with primary caregivers affect relationships throughout the lifespan (Bowlby, 1969, 1973). He theorized that there are four phases of attachment, as outlined in Table 13.1. Bowlby recognized that babies at first have no preference for particular humans, but they begin to show strong emotional connections to adult caregivers beginning at 4 to 6 months. Bowlby used attachment theory to help explain how children who were physically separated from their parents thrived—or not—depending on how attached they became to alternate caregivers. His theory was instrumental in changing public policy about how children were treated during long hospital stays or other circumstances during which children and parents were separated.

Table 13.1: Phases of attachment ሁ Inspired by ethological theory that demonstrated the importance of early relationships in other

animals (see Section 1.5), Bowlby theorized that there are four phases of attachment.

Phase Approximate period Attachment characteristics

Preattachment Birth to 6 weeks • Smiling, gazing, and crying encourage adult interaction (aids survival).

• No protest (separation anxiety) when usual caregiver departs.

Attachment-in-the-making 6 weeks to 6 months • Infants recognize familiar people; develop preferences.

• More prelinguistic communication with familiar people than with strangers.

• Few protests when usual caregiver departs.

Organized, goal-directed attachment

7 to 24 months • Children become upset when usual caregiver departs.

• Protests peak during early part of second year (see Figure 11.2).

Formation of reciprocal partnerships

Beginning at 24 months • Children understand object permanence (Section 7.1) and know that parents will return.

• Negotiated relationships; “give-and- take” (e.g., read “one more story”).

• Protests diminish as autonomy increases.

Source: Bowlby (1969; 1973)

Measuring Attachment Mary Ainsworth expanded on Bowlby’s principles of attachment theory while devising a method for describing different types of attachment. She and her colleagues identified dis- tinctive attachment styles in a laboratory process known as the Strange Situation. In this staged, standardized procedure, babies experience a series of separation-and-reunion epi- sodes designed to measure the strength of an attachment relationship (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978):

Section 13.1Attachment

1. Mother and baby enter unfamiliar room. 2. Mother sits while baby explores toys and surroundings. 3. Adult stranger enters room. 4. Mother exits room (stranger is alone with baby). 5. Mother returns to comfort baby; stranger leaves. 6. Mother exits (baby alone in room). 7. Stranger returns. 8. Mother returns; stranger exits.

There is considerable variation in the ways that children react to the two reunion situations. About one-third of infants cannot be classified, but among the remainder, four patterns of attachment behavior are observed:

• Securely attached infants readily investigate their surroundings when their caregivers are present and use them as a base in much the same way that Bowlby described. They exhibit distress (protest) when separated but are generally easily calmed when caregivers reappear. Parents of securely attached children are gener- ally more sensitive and responsive to their children’s needs than the parents of the three types of insecure infants. About two-thirds of infants are classified as securely attached, representing the vast majority of infants studied in North America and elsewhere (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Finger, Hans, Bernstein, & Cox, 2009).

• Insecure-avoidant infants are characterized by indifference to their mothers. In the Strange Situation, these babies paid little attention when their mothers exited and remained in a fairly stable mood when their mothers returned. Some infants consciously avoided their mothers, even turning their backs. Parents of avoidant children have been found to inadequately respond to needs. They also can be reject- ing and avoid physical contact, forcing their children to soothe themselves. About 20% of children fit the avoidant category (Ainsworth et al., 1978; McElwain & Booth- LaForce, 2006).

• Insecure-resistant (or ambivalent) infants show a high level of distress. They tend to both demand and fight closeness (displaying ambivalence), and often show anger when the caregiver returns. Caregivers of insecure babies have been found to model the ambivalent behavior by practicing an inconsistent pattern of both respon- siveness and neglect. About 10% of North American babies present this type of attachment pattern (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Dwairy, 2010).

• Disorganized-disoriented infants are thought to be the least securely attached. They exhibit a great degree of confusion and contradictory behaviors during both separation and reunion situations. For instance, they may approach a parent without displaying emotion or look away while being comforted. They show other unusual behaviors, like not moving for minutes at a time while looking around in a confused manner. Only about 5% of infants behave in a disorganized manner, a good propor- tion of whom have suffered abuse or neglect. In addition, parents who have a history of being abused have a propensity to engage in fearful and disorganized parent- ing practices, perhaps fueling that behavior in their infants (Ballen, Bernier, Moss, Tarabulsy, & St-Laurent, 2010; Main & Solomon, 1986, 1990).

The patterns found in the controlled laboratory mimic the ways that children behave at home (Behrens, Parker, Parker, & Haltgan, 2011; Pederson & Moran, 1996). Cross-culturally, as well, some research suggests that maternal behaviors can “fully account” for differences in

Section 13.1Attachment

attachment behavior (Bernier, Matte-Gagné, Bélanger, & Whipple, 2014). Children who are securely attached during infancy show fewer adjustment problems in later years, compared to insecurely attached children. They tend to be more socially competent, too. Evidence is continuing to show that even successful adult relationships are associated with early secure attachment relationships (Beebe & Lachmann, 2014; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007).

In contrast, insecure attachments are more often associated with maladaptive behaviors, includ- ing poor academic performance and behavioral adjustment problems in school. Resistant and disorganized children tend to externalize their problems, resulting in relatively more conduct disorders, whereas ambivalent children internalize their problems, experiencing more depres- sion, anxiety, and perhaps physical symptoms like stomachaches (Aviezer, Sagi, & Resnick, 2002; Beebe & Lachmann, 2014; Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010; McCartney, Owen, Booth, Clarke-Stewart, & Vandell, 2004).

A study that followed over 200 children for three decades found that attachment behaviors among both parents and children remained consistent through the years. There was a strong association between children with a resistant attachment organization and later anxiety dis- orders. Perhaps resistant children alienate their caregivers, creating a negative cycle of recip- rocal determinism. Alternatively, avoidant children were more depressed by adolescence. When the children became parents themselves, there were strong parallels between their attachment styles and how they responded to their own children (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005).

Research with orphaned Romanian children also lends strong support to the early influence of environment on attachment (Chisholm, 1998; Chisholm, Carter, Ames, & Morison, 1995). Children who were adopted before they were 4 months old were compared to adopted chil- dren who spent at least 8 months under very poor institutionalized conditions. Due to inade- quate human contact, both sets of children experienced the kind of severe emotional depriva- tion that would typically lead to insecure attachment. And many children who were deprived of early emotional contact did indeed form insecure attachment styles. However, later, when some of these children experienced appropriate attachment relationships in their adoptive families, they were quite resilient and able to form secure attachments. These conclusions demonstrate that even a serious risk factor (in this case, severe emotional deprivation) does not necessarily determine later behavioral problems or psychopathology.

Other research suggests that contemporary family variables like divorce and sensitivity in parenting are more predictive of attachment status later. Lewis, Feiring, and Rosenthal (2000) found that insecure children who later experience sensitive parenting are more socially com- petent and better adjusted than secure children who later experience a lack of sensitive parenting.

Michael Lewis (1997) and Jerome Kagan (1987) also argue that environmental changes like positive adult models have a significant effect on outcome. According to them, the environ- ment a child experiences at any particular age and a child’s feeling of continuity are more important than what happens between 6 and 24 months of age. We are born with the ten- dency to form early attachments, but infants and older children are resilient even when solid attachments don’t form. The Romanian children and Chrystal’s change in the prologue to Module 12 are examples of the resiliency that Lewis and Kagan describe.

Section 13.1Attachment

Multiple Attachments and Diversity Environmental influences on attachment behavior are demonstrated further when infants show diversity in attachment figures. Even in the 1960s, when the vast majority of babies remained with their mothers for most of the day, Bowlby acknowledged that many children have multiple attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969). Grandparents, fathers, childcare profes- sionals, and others can form attachments, even if mothers are primary caregivers. A multi- tude of cross-cultural research shows that no one person is essential for attachment (Ballen et al., 2010; Booth, Kelly, & Spieker, 2003; Posada, 2013; Silverstein & Auerbach 1999; True, Pisana, & Oumar, 2001).

Cross-cultural evidence also suggests that the majority of infants around the world are securely attached. As Figure 13.1 shows, the global proportion of secure infants is relatively consistent

(Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1998; Van IJzen- doorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). These findings sup- port the original ethological and biological theories set forth by Lorenz and Bowlby, though some statis- tically significant differences do exist. For instance, higher proportions of Japanese babies are classified as both secure and resistant. However, it may be that Japanese infants are not actually resistant. Instead, perhaps they are more stressed under the Strange Situation since under ordinary conditions they are seldom out of their mothers’ care. Japanese mothers could also be wary and project those feelings onto their children (Takahashi, 1990).

Other studies also show that demonstration of attachment may be influenced by cultural practices. For instance, children who are less often exposed to strangers may be more alert to their presence (Jin, Jacobvitz, Hazen, & Jung, 2012). Perhaps the way in which children appraise the setting affects their categorization on the Strange Situation more than actual differences. Studies of Chinese, Swedish, African, and other infants also suggest that culture and child-rearing practices account for variation in the Strange Situation, rather than innate differ- ences (Chen et al., 2006; True et al., 2001; Van IJzen- doorn & Kroonenberg, 1998; Van IJzendoorn & Sagi- Schwartz, 2008).

© Karen Kasmauski/Corbis ሁ Children can have multiple

attachment figures, like in this multigenerational daycare center in Tokyo.

Section 13.1Attachment

Figure 13.1: Attachment behaviors among a number of different cultures

ሁ Cross-cultural studies show that styles of attachment appear in somewhat similar percentages, especially for securely attached infants.

P e rc

e n

ta g

e o

f c h

il d

re n

i n

a tt

a c h

m e n

t ty

p e

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

Insecure-avoidant (A)

Insecure-resistant (C)

Secure (B)

Culture Germany Great

Britain Netherlands Sweden Israel Japan China USA

Source: Attachment behaviors among a number of different cultures, from Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.), pp. 880–905. New York: Guilford Press , Table 37.1, p. 898.

Fathers and Attachment Infants typically form attachments with both their fathers and their mothers. Under normal circumstances, these relationships occur even when the mother performs more of the child- care activities, like changing diapers, feeding, and bathing. In addition, though it does not appear to affect attachment, parents behave differently depending on the sex of the children in their care (as do nurses, schoolteachers, and others). Although fathers are equally sensitive to their sons and daughters (i.e., they respond promptly and appropriately when

Section 13.1Attachment

infants signal they are in need), mothers are more sensitive to daughters than to sons (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2006). However, when securely attached infants who approach and interact equally with both parents become distressed, the infants prefer to be comforted by their mothers rather than their fathers (Cummings & Kouros, 2009; Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer, 1991; Lamb, 1976).

Father-child and mother-child patterns of interaction remain typical regardless of how house- hold chores and responsibilities are differentiated. For instance, on an Israeli kibbutz, where childcare responsibilities are the domain of nonparents, fathers and mothers still engage in

the stereotypical interactions observed in the United States and elsewhere. Mothers on the kibbutz vocalize with their infants more than fathers, are more affec- tionate toward them, and also engage in more childcare activities; fathers more than mothers typically engage in more play with their children (Sagi, Lamb, Shoham, Dvir, & Lewkowicz, 1985).

Perhaps different parental attachment behavior is due to distinctions in the way that mothers and fathers interact with children. Research suggests that fathers promote attachment when they engage in a more physical style of play. There are bursts of excitement and more sponta- neity. It is thought that interacting physically helps children set boundaries as they learn the limits of fair and appropriate play (Paquette & Dumont, 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan, Kotila, Jia, Lang, & Bower, 2013).

In addition, fathers allow children to take more (calculated) risks than mothers (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011; Ishak, Tamis-LeMonda, & Adolph, 2007). Risk taking promotes emotional intel- ligence and autonomy as children learn good decision making. Overall, children who engage in higher quality and more interactive forms of play with their fathers have fewer social and behavioral problems than children who don’t have such interactions (Fletcher, St. George, & Freeman, 2013). Two separate longitudinal studies found that attachment is most easily pre- dicted by level of paternal involvement and sensitivity. Positive attachment relationships are associated with both quantity and quality of father interactions. Research is conclusive that children fare better when they have a close relationship with their fathers than when they do not (Brown, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, 2012; Grossmann et al., 2002).

Long-Term Effects of Attachment Secure attachment appears to have lasting effects. During adolescence, secure attachment relationships are used to guide new relationship behaviors. For instance, during this time adolescents typically transition from relying on parents for emotional support to peers to romantic partners. In general, secure children more easily find comfort in others. Substantial evidence indicates a positive effect on problem solving and overall cognitive development, as well. More securely attached children are probably more cooperative and open to assistance,

Critical Thinking Why do you think both play and childcare activities contribute to secure attachment relationships?

Section 13.2Parenting

and their parents are probably more likely to promote educational goals (West, Mathews, & Kerns, 2013). Conversely, insecure attachment is associated with more problematic relation- ships and negative individual outcomes like criminal behavior and depression (Allen, Porter, McFarland, McElhaney, & Marsh, 2007; Beebe & Lachmann, 2014; Hoeve et al., 2012).

Conclusion In sum, there is strong evidence that secure attachment during infancy projects to more adaptive social, cognitive, and emotional outcomes in later childhood and into adulthood. Research indicates that insecure children have poorer quality interpersonal relationships extending throughout the school years and beyond, but it appears that negative effects can be mitigated—or even reversed—when later relationships include attention and sensitivity. Similarly, sensitive early care needs to remain consistent past infancy so that secure attach- ment relationships are reinforced and continue to be secure.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W How do infants form attachments? How is attachment important to development?

13.2 Parenting As you have learned, relationships during infancy and early childhood can have a strong influ- ence on later adjustment. Warm, affectionate, involved parents provide a number of protec- tions from negative behaviors throughout childhood. Of course, poor parenting practices do not always predict maladaptive behavior, just as good parenting cannot always insulate children from negative outcomes. Nevertheless, we know that parenting plays a strong role in psychosocial development, and different parenting behaviors can have a lasting effect on multiple aspects of development.

Diana Baumrind’s research (1971) was instrumental in identifying the most common pat- terns of parenting (Table 13.2). Her investigations revealed four parenting styles based on the dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Each pattern has since been deter- mined to be relatively stable and is associated with different outcomes in children (Holden & Miller, 1999; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbush, & Darling, 1994; van den Akker, Deković, Prinzie, & Asscher, 2010). Keep in mind that, although classifications are useful, the complexities of childhood, including variables related to both nature and nurture, make it impossible to reli- ably predict outcomes.

Section 13.2Parenting

Table 13.2: Parenting types Parenting type

Characteristics and examples of behaviors

Typical style of discipline

Child’s outcome rela- tive to other styles

Authoritarian1 Intrusive, rigid, controlling; demand compliance. “Military” or “Tiger Mom” type. May activate GPS on cell phone to monitor whereabouts.

Punitive, punishing; no negotiation. More likely than others to use physical and other harsh forms of punishment.

Less sociable; more dependent, anx- ious. Higher risk of delinquency.

Permissive2 Indulgent; warm but with few demands. Acts more as a friend than as an authority figure. “Anything goes” atti- tude of acceptance.

Few expectations and, thus, little discipline; consequences of misbe- havior often ignored.

Higher risk of drinking and drug use. Poorer self-regulation. May mature faster.

Authoritative3 Warm, supportive; communicative. Willing to negotiate and hear child’s point of view.

A process that includes reasoning and expla- nation; child involve- ment may include some negotiation. Natural and logical consequences.

Higher prosocial behavior. Independent, cooperative, highly self-regulated. Higher academic achievement. Least likely to use drugs.

Neglectful4 Uninvolved and indif- ferent; therefore, rejecting. Provides basic needs only; ignores everyday activi- ties and psychosocial well-being.

Poor supervision leads to more misbehavior and harsher punish- ment when discovered.

Poor supervision leads to greatest risk of delin- quency, including use of alcohol and drugs. Lack of attachment affects social skills with peers and authority figures. Poorly self-regulated; immature. Poor sense of self.

1 Baumrind (1971); Fung & Lau (2009); Hoeve et al. (2008). 2 Baumrind (1971). 3 Baumrind (1971); Hokoda, Lu, & Angeles (2006); Simons & Conger (2007). 4 Baumrind (1971); Hoeve et al. (2008); Steinberg et al. (1994).

Parents typically engage in a continuum of behavior and are rarely as consistent as the cat- egories might suggest. Even “ideal” parents make mistakes and are at times inconsistent. For instance, authoritative parents may behave in a punitive manner if their child behaves inap- propriately toward an adult, becomes disruptive in public, or uses drugs. Authoritarian par-

ents are not always cold and demanding, and even per- missive parents will set rules. Again, these descriptors are typical averages, not the result of cause-and-effect relationships. Rather than wanting to control behavior or dictate the future, the vast majority of parents seem to have the same goal of raising children to be valued adults (Quinn, 2005).

Critical Thinking How would you decide if a parent is sim- ply unskilled or is guilty of being criminally neglectful?

Section 13.2Parenting

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : D i s c i p l i n e My goal in teaching discipline is self-discipline. I want children and adolescents to be responsible for their own behaviors so that parents are not burdened with having to mete out punishment. Similar to the authoritative style, I encourage parents to use a demo- cratic approach; I like children to have choices: “You may watch television after you put the blocks away.” “You don’t have to pick up your room, but you can’t go out tonight unless you do.”

Young children are empowered by being in control of their own behavior. They are also given the opportunity to develop autonomy and show initiative. As children grow socially, conf licts are reduced when there are natural and logical consequences to actions rather than arbitrary punishments. When a 3 year old has a temper tantrum, the parent can respond, “I do not want to hear you scream right now. Please stop or I am going to leave the room.” Or if it is not practical for the parent to leave, the child can be asked to leave. Children will voluntarily go to another area if asked. For how long? Until the behavior is appropriate. The goal is self-discipline, not punishment. When parents spank, yell, and punish, they—rather than the child—become responsible for the behavior.

If parents continually struggle getting a child to bed on time, then electronics or other distractions should be eliminated earlier in the evening—until behavior is appropriate. It is the child’s choice to get ready on time or not. This way, there is no phone, no com- puter—and no fighting. The phone and computer are easily available after responsibilities are completed.

Cultural and Contextual Variations in Parenting and Discipline Research finds consistently that, among the four patterns of parenting, an authoritative style is most beneficial for children. However, context and cultural differences remain an important consideration. For instance, with few exceptions, parenting literature in the first half of the 20th century usually recommended an authoritarian approach. If children did not perform up to standards, then they were to be treated harshly until they did. Attitudes about chil- dren did not change much until the 1970s (not very long ago), when research into children began to accelerate and the family environment was spotlighted once again. As a result, family dynamics have become more democratic, even in families and cultures with longstanding tra- ditions of harsh discipline. For a number of years now, the traditional authoritarian standard has shifted toward authoritative methods (Brown & Larson, 2002; Moran & Vinovskis, 1985; Smuts & Hagen, 1985).

Hispanic and black families remain more authoritarian, compared to white families. Regard- less of race or ethnicity, though, on average, parents of higher socioeconomic status (SES) employ more positive parenting techniques and fewer authoritarian measures. And whites have a comparatively higher SES. Perhaps parents from higher SES groups are more resource- ful and learn to adapt better to their children’s needs (Azad, Blacher, & Marcoulides, 2014; Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005; Ispa et al., 2004).

Section 13.2Parenting

“Tiger” Parenting Other cultures also continue to embrace authoritarian methods. For instance, Chinese fami- lies, especially mothers, have a reputation of being relatively strict. They tend to have high standards and emphasize control and compliance. However, it has been argued that their methods represent a distinctive form of training rather than domineering control, and that Chinese parents do indeed promote autonomy and emotional support (Chao, 2001; Juang, Qin, & Park, 2013; Liew, 2014; Stevenson & Zusho, 2002). Regardless, these practices have resulted in overall superior academic performance, compared to U.S. peers (Chen, Chen, & Zheng, 2012; Kim, Wang, Orozco-Lapray, Shen, & Murtuza, 2013). In her controversial book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (2011), Yale law professor Amy Chua celebrates this style, but she has also been sharply criticized in the popular media for her harsh methods. Among other restrictions, her daughters were not allowed to watch television or play computer games, play with friends after school, choose their own extracurricular activities, or bring home any grade less than an A.

As a reaction to the media attention brought about by Chua’s book, in 2013 the American Psychological Association devoted a Special Issue of Asian American Journal of Psychology to further explore this subject. After considerable research and analyses of a wider variety of Asian families (e.g., Korean American, Hmong American, mainland Chinese), it was generally found that Asian parents are indeed stricter on average, but also emotionally warm. The typi- cal “Tiger Mom” exists but is uncommon. Furthermore, “Tiger” parenting is not associated with the best outcomes for children, either academically or psychosocially. Studies with other ethnic groups support this finding (e.g., Varela, Niditch, Hensley-Maloney, Moore, & Creveling, 2013). In other words, Amy Chua’s version of Asian parenting is a more stereotyped, simpli- fied version of a perspective that is much more nuanced (Juang et al., 2013).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : “ N o ! ” A psychiatrist friend once asked me for some advice for his twin 18-month-old toddlers, who were having a difficult time listening and following rules. I suggested one of my favor- ite discipline activities for parents of very young children: “Count the number of times you say the word, ‘No!’ during the day.”

By 1:00 on a weekend afternoon my friend stopped counting after he and his wife had said “No!” 76 times!

Just like older children, toddlers need clear direction and rules in order to understand appropriate behavior. When parents and caregivers anticipate a child is moving toward an inappropriate behavior, simply saying no can have a number of different meanings:

Don’t go in that direction. Don’t walk. Don’t look at that. Stay over here. Don’t move. Don’t explore.

(continued)

Section 13.3Spanking and Physical Punishment

Instead, be clear about what behavior is appropriate. “Please do not go near the pile of trash,” “I need you to keep that cabinet closed,” “We need to be gentle with books” are examples that provide clear directions and have the added benefit of facilitating language development.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Differentiate among Baumrind’s parenting styles. Describe the types and explain how they are associated with discipline.

13.3 Spanking and Physical Punishment As parents have gradually shifted to more authoritative methods, there has been a slight decrease in corporal punishment. Spanking as a form of corporal discipline remains an explo- sive topic in both academic and mainstream circles. Although the American Academy of Pedi- atrics officially issued a recommendation against spanking and other forms of corporal punish- ment in 1998, 59% of pediatricians and 70% of family physicians supported its use just 6 years prior to making the recommendation (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psycho- social Aspects of Child and Family Health, 1998; McCormick, 1992). Regardless, the majority of parents still favor spanking. Among parents with children 5 years old and younger, about 65% report that they used some kind of corporal punishment in the previous month. Almost half of mothers spank children who are 20 months or younger. Among some groups, the incidence of spanking and corporal punishment is over 90%. Further- more, about 90% of parents have spanked their children at one time or another, even though only 70% approve of it and most would prefer to use other methods (Child Trends, 2013; Harris Poll, 2013; Regalado, Sareen, Inke- las, Wissow, & Halfon, 2004; Taylor, Manganello, Lee, & Rice, 2010).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : S p a n k i n g If you think spanking is okay in some situations, under what circumstances would you allow an excellent and professional babysitter to spank your child? Most people who are in favor of spanking are completely against an outsider engaging in the same type of cor- poral punishment. So try this: Think of a situation where you think spanking is absolutely necessary and no alternatives are available. Now, what would you want your excellent and professional babysitter to do under those same circumstances? Delayed punishment is not effective (e.g., “Wait till your father gets home.”), so that is not a good option. Whatever alternatives you think are available for your babysitter are available for yourself, too.

Critical Thinking Explain the difference between discipline that is intended as punishment and discipline that is used as a means of teaching self-regulation.

Section 13.3Spanking and Physical Punishment

In 1979, Sweden became the first country in the modern era to ban spanking (see Figure 13.2). It was not for another 14 years that another country (Finland) followed suit. Momentum to ban all forms of corporal punishment against children has accelerated since. As of the middle of 2014, 37 countries had passed legislation that prohibits corporal punishment in all set- tings (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2014). The United States remains fairly liberal toward physical punishment and has no current legislation pending. Con- trary to what many observers think, there is no federal prohibition against corporal punish- ment in schools, though there has been considerable local control in an effort to reduce its use.

Figure 13.2: Countries where corporal punishment is illegal ሁ Corporal punishment has been prohibited worldwide in various settings.

N u

m b

e r

o f

c o

u n

tr ie

s

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

No. of countries prohibiting No. of countries not prohibiting

Care setting

Source: Adapted from the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (2014). www.endcorporalpunishment.org

Studies have concluded that corporal pun- ishment is associated with diminished qual- ity of parent-child relationships, greater aggression, mental health issues, poor school adjustment, substance abuse, anti- social behaviors, and other negative out- comes (Gershoff, 2002; MacKenzie, Nicklas, Waldfogel, & Brooks-Gunn, 2012; MacMil- lan et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2010). Like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Cana- dian Paediatric Society (2004) issued an advisory against physical punishment after concluding that corporal punishment has an overall negative effect on children. These positions are part of a worldwide shift from corporal punishment as an accepted stan- dard of discipline to an act that is thought of as a risk to healthy development.

PhotoAlto/Superstock ሁ As society and culture have changed, there is

no longer universal acceptance of certain kinds of discipline, such as spanking.

Section 13.3Spanking and Physical Punishment

Underlying this issue is the finding that corporal punishment is actually effective. It leads to immediate compliance, and evidence suggesting that it is always harmful is not completely substantiated (Larzelere, 2000). Even Diana Baumrind (1996) concluded that “a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents is not scientifically supportable” (p. 828). Baumrind, Larzelere, & Cowan (2002) make the case that only severe forms of punishment are responsible for the negative effects on children. They imply that all parents need not refrain from using techniques that some parents take to the extreme.

However, parents who use corporal punishment are more likely to eventually physically abuse children. That is, on average, parents who use “acceptable” physical discipline are more likely than others to later engage in “unacceptable” abuse. Still, it is difficult to clearly differentiate actions that constitute corporal punishment from those that are abusive. Even researchers do not always make a clear distinction (Holden, 2002; MacKenzie et al., 2012).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : A l t e r n a t i v e s t o S p a n k i n g Spanking is a sensitive subject. Some observers think it is unreasonable to expect parents never to use physical punishment. Evidence from Baumrind and others suggests that an occasional mild spanking will not be harmful and is likely to lead to more compliant behav- ior. But is that a good enough reason to use it?

Parents continue to use spanking because it appears to work better than other methods. They see that a slap on the buttocks often stops unwanted behavior, whereas “time outs” or other nonphysical discipline strategies are not always successful.

It is true that many of you reading this have been spanked and turned out just fine. However, neither parents nor children like the experience of corporal punishment. And though some psychologists (notably, James Dobson) suggest scheduling spankings to remove any emotion from the process, for most people this standard is not realistic.

Alternatively, simply planning to spank less will likely lead to less physical punishment. Studies show that even a brief, 20-minute video presentation is effective in changing atti- tudes about physical punishment. Knowing that there are alternatives when responding to children who exhibit aggressive behaviors appears to cause parents to think differently about situations that require discipline (Scholer, Hamilton, Johnson, & Scott, 2010).

Therefore, in a practical way, spanking can be reduced if parents think about consequences for common situations before they occur. For example, when an infant grabs at something that may be harmful or hurtful, grasp the baby’s hand instead of hitting it. If a toddler is banging a door, get between the toddler and the door and prevent the action while calmly explaining that banging the door is inappropriate. Is your 6 year old yelling while you are on the phone? Have your child practice using a “phone voice” early on, and he or she will likely respond when asked to do so. When a 10 year old is mistreating a younger sibling while playing, simply let both of them know that they cannot play together until their behavior is appropriate. The goal in these alternatives is self-discipline, not parental control. If misbe- having children think they can behave appropriately one minute later, that’s okay. Let them dictate their own behavior so that you do not always have to be responsible for their actions.

If adults find their patience waning, sometimes they need to remove themselves from the situation. In other words, they need a time out. Finally, it is important to praise appropriate behavior. Many parents do a good job reinforcing behavior of young children, but they begin to focus more on negative behaviors as children grow into adolescence.

Section 13.4Child Maltreatment and Abuse

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Based on research findings, what would you advise parents about the use of spanking?

13.4 Child Maltreatment and Abuse Some people argue that any time an adult uses physical discipline with a child it constitutes maltreatment. Because it is sometimes difficult to account for the diversity of situations that can be injurious to children, developmentalists increasingly employ the broader term mal- treatment over abuse. In the United States, the American Psychological Association helped draft federal guidelines, which are much more specific (though individual states can make further distinctions). Abuse is defined as,

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploi- tation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013, p. ix).

There are four main categories of abuse, as shown in Figure 13.3. Although children are often victims of multiple forms of abuse, the figures reported here represent the types of abuse that Child Protective Services recorded during the initial investigation:

• Psychological (or emotional) abuse accounts for 8.5% of reported cases. It occurs when adults engage in acts that cause serious mental problems leading to cognitive, behavioral, or psychological damage. It can include ridicule, terrorizing, social isola- tion, or purposeful and continuous emotional withholding.

• Sexual abuse accounts for 9.3% of reported cases. It can include fondling, exhibi- tionism, intercourse, and exploitation through prostitution or other pornographic means. Because sexual abuse is in the news more often than other types of abuse, it is mistakenly thought of as the most common type. More men than women commit crimes of sexual abuse.

• Physical abuse consists of behaviors that inflict physical injury such as stabbing, hitting, kicking, burning, and shaking. In 2012, 18.3% of reported cases were due to physical abuse.

• Neglect is broadly defined as failure to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical attention, but there is a large gray area here. Parents who put their children in harm’s way by a lack of supervision are also guilty of neglect. Although neglect is sometimes difficult to define, 38% of deaths due to abuse were strictly because of neglect, including the withholding of medical treatment. Data show that 78% of reported cases of abuse involve primarily neglect. Children born to young mothers under the age of 17 are at particular risk for neglect (Bartlett & Easterbrooks, 2012).

Many victims of abuse suffer from a combination of types, so figures are only estimates. For instance, neglect and sexual and physical abuse almost always include psychological abuse as

Section 13.4Child Maltreatment and Abuse

well. Over one-third of fatalities involved multiple types of maltreatment (Trickett, Mennen, Kim, & Sang, 2009; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013).

Figure 13.3: Types of maltreatment, by percent, 2012 ሁ Abuse often involves more than one type of maltreatment. For instance, although most forms of

abuse include psychological maltreatment, it is rarely recorded that way.

Percent of reported cases 400 6020 80 100

Neglect

Unknown

Medical neglect

Psychological maltreatment

Sexual abuse

Other

Physical abuse

T y p

e o

f m

a lt

re a tm

e n

t

Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2013).

Some family circumstances, like the stress of unemployment or moving, put children at higher risk of abuse. However, there is no single identifiable profile of abused children, and predict- ing who will abuse and who will be abused is not possible. Victims come from a variety of demographic backgrounds and exhibit a range of emotional and other problems. They also have varied responses to treatment (Cicchetti & Toth, 2006). Few parents escape everyday stresses, but most do not abuse their children.

The evidence of a relationship between childhood abuse and later psychological functioning is substantial (Leeb, Lewis, & Zolotor, 2011; Mills et al., 2013; Norman et al., 2012). Half of all preschool children who have been abused develop a special health care need within 3 years, including many who exhibit significant behavioral prob- lems. About 22% have cognitive or other developmental needs, often due to neglect (Ringeisen, Casanueva, Urato, & Cross, 2008; Stahmer et al., 2005). Nearly half of children who have been abused show signs of mental health problems in early adulthood, and 17% report having been arrested at least once in the previous year. This rate is four times higher than for young adults who have not been abused. Also, up to 90% of abused infants also develop an

Scott Camazine/Science Source ሁ Bleeding under the skull is visible (colored red

in the upper left) in this brain scan of a 6-month- old child, the result of shaken baby syndrome, a type of physical abuse.

Section 13.4Child Maltreatment and Abuse

insecure attachment style; 80% show atypical disorganized patterns, putting them at risk for relationship problems throughout the lifespan.

Adolescents who experienced abuse when they were younger have a higher risk of violence in peer relationships and romantic relationships, are more likely to be promiscuous, and have a higher incidence of homelessness and substance abuse (Keeshin & Campbell, 2011; Salter et al., 2003; Shields & Ciccetti, 2001; Shin, Hong, & Hazen, 2010; Wekerle et al., 2009). Most literature suggests that, compared to adults who were not abused as children, those who experienced abuse are more likely to expose their own children to abuse. This finding is espe- cially true for mothers. However, it should be noted that most studies are methodologically weak (Pianta, Egeland, & Erickson, 1989; Thornberry, Knight, & Lovegrove, 2012). Regard- less, contrary to what many observers might think, children who suffer abuse are not destined to transmit the harmful impact to the next generation. Between 70 and 80% of children who are abused do not grow up to abuse their own children. Social and psychological support bol- sters resiliency in these abused children. Thus, when they grow up, they become able to pro- vide their own children with necessary warmth and sensitivity (Jaffee et al., 2013; Kaufman & Zigler, 1987, 1997).

F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : R e p o r t i n g C h i l d A b u s e If you suspect a child in the United States has been abused, or need to speak with a counselor for any reason, call the national helpline at 1-800-4AChild (800-422-4253). Individuals making legitimate reports are never legally liable when reporting suspected abuse. By contrast, you may be liable if you do not report suspected abuse. If you are unsure if abuse has occurred, you can always phone the helpline anonymously and ask for an opin- ion about whether you need to officially report an incident. The helpline is also available for parents, professionals, and others to answer questions and assist in a possible crisis situation.

In 2012, over 686,000 children were identified as victims of abuse (see Figure 13.2 for preva- lence of types of abuse), but the actual number is much higher due to the estimated two- thirds of cases that go unreported. For every 100,000 children in the population, there were 2.2 reported deaths as a result of abuse, or 1,640 children. Approximately 70% of deaths were among children younger than 3 years old. More than 80% of perpetrators are parents, another 6.1% are other relatives, and 4.2% are unmarried partners of parents. Women per- petrators outnumber men by 53.5% to 45.3% (the remaining 1.2% are unidentified), prob- ably because they are involved in more childcare activities than men. However, men are more likely than women to cause greater harm and death (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013).

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Define types of child maltreatment and explain its implications for psychological health.

Section 13.5Family and Home Environment

13.5 Family and Home Environment In direct contrast to the parents just discussed, in general it appears that parents who are available, warm, and sensitive provide a measure of protection for their children. As noted in Module 11, there are many advantages for children whose parents model prosocial behavior. Demographic variables such as SES are important predictors, as well. Compared to children from less educated, lower-income homes, those from highly educated, wealthier homes are more likely to have been born to married parents, to live with two parents, and to eventu- ally enter into happier, longer-term marriages. After attending better schools, they are more likely to attend college. Even though the structure of the family has changed in recent decades (see Figure 13.4 for a description of living arrangements for children in the United States), over 75% of high school seniors report that a good marriage and family life are “extremely important,” a figure that has remained relatively unchanged for nearly 30 years (Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 2011).

Figure 13.4: Percentage of children living in different arrangements ሁ Although the majority of children live with two married, biological parents, other arrangements

are common.

Single mother

Single mother with cohabiting partner

Single father

Single father with partner Single stepparent

Other relative

Grandparent

Nonrelative

Foster parents

Other

Two biological/adoptive married parents

One biological/adoptive parent and stepparent

Two biological/adoptive cohabiting parents

Two parents 67.7%

One parent 28.7%

No parents 3.6%

Source: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Fertility & Family Statistics Branch, 2013.

Section 13.5Family and Home Environment

In the United States, there has been a rising trend toward children born to single mothers, especially among blacks. More than 71% of black children are born to single mothers, com- pared to 41% of children overall; about half of all black children under the age of 18 live with a single parent, compared to 25% of all children (Martin, Hamilton, Osterman, Curtin, & Mathews, 2013). Once again, though, there are dramatic differences in SES. Over the past three decades, the number of low-SES 14-year-old girls who live with both parents has dropped from 72% to 51%; among high-SES children, regardless of race, percentages have remained somewhat steadier, dropping only from 82% to 78% (Bachman et al., 2011; National Survey of Family Growth, 2012). As is the case with other differences among racial and ethnic groups, SES appears to be a more robust indicator of social outcome than race.

Throughout the world, having two parents in the household is associated with greater liter- acy, a lower chance of repeating a grade in school, and overall higher academic achievement. In many countries, having two parents in the household is a determining factor in whether or not children will attend school at all (World Family Map, 2013).

Secular Changes and the Home Environment Like the number of children born to single mothers, other patterns of variation in the home environment have occurred. When these changes occur over a relatively long period of time, we call them secular changes. They are not due any one particular event and generally have a gradual influence on society or individual development. For instance, increasing numbers of women in the labor force and economic instability worldwide have led to changes in tradi- tional parenting roles. Dual-earner families now predominate in the Western world, coincid- ing with a significant increase in males contributing to household chores. On average, fathers in dual-earner households perform about 40% of child and household activities, but they also work about 15% more outside the home (Lamb & Lewis, 2010; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004).

There is also evidence that father involvement provides a unique positive contribution to the health of the family. Warmth and attention from fathers contributes to greater cognitive and social competence, a finding that is consistent across many cultures (Veneziano, 2003). Higher quality father-child interaction during infancy is associated with higher self-esteem during adolescence and predicts positive adult adjustment.

Furthermore, teenager-father reports of closeness at age 16 are correlated with satisfaction during adolescence as well as marital satisfaction at age 33. Although teenager-mother close- ness predicts marital satisfaction at age 33, it is not associated with adolescent happiness, suggesting a special quality that fathers bring to the family dynamic (Lamb & Lewis, 2010). In the same way that we see negative intergenerational effects of maltreatment, positive rela- tionships predict children who grow to be good parents. Longitudinal research shows that adolescents who report higher quality relationships become parents who are themselves more sensitive and less reactive, show more warmth, and have better discipline skills 30 years later (Friesen, Woodward, Horwook, & Fergusson, 2013).

Divorce In the United States, about 64% of children currently live with both biological parents (see Figure 13.4); about half of all children will live with both biological parents until the age of 18 (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). International literature strongly suggests that, compared to

Section 13.5Family and Home Environment

intact families, children of recently divorced parents show a higher degree of psychosocial problems, although their parents underestimate the extent of their reactions (Clark-Stewart & Brentano, 2006; Hannan & Halpin, 2014). Children of divorce experience increased anxiety, sleep disturbances, and depression, especially during the first 2 years after a breakup. There is a higher incidence of conduct problems in younger children and delinquency and criminal behavior among adolescents. Parent-child relationships suffer, too, often because children feel allegiance to both parents (Amato, 2001; Amato & Afifi, 2006; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2014).

The stress of divorce seems to persist into adulthood, especially for women. In a 16-year follow-up study of 1,471 children who were of various ages when their parents divorced, researchers concluded that long-term effects included less education and greater unem- ployment. Overall psychological health suffered, as well. Women were at a higher risk for depression and experienced more conflict in their interpersonal relationships. These results may contribute to the finding that children from divorced families in general have a higher-than-average incidence of divorce when they later marry (Huurre, Junkkari, & Aro, 2006).

Academic disagreements about the conse- quences of divorce center on the size of the effects rather than on the existence of such effects (e.g., Hetherington & Elmore, 2003; Sigle-Rushton, Lyngstad, Andersen, & Kravdal, 2014). It is argued that the effect of divorce is somewhat muted and that nega- tive outcomes disappear within 2 years after the divorce, especially for boys. Although, on average, children in divorced families have more emotional and behav- ioral problems, the majority of children do not have major long-term issues with adjustment. There are more negative outcomes in gen- eral, but group differences between children of divorce and among those from intact families are not particularly robust (Hetherington, 2005; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

From a purely practical standpoint, academic achievement among children of divorce often suffers, especially among elementary school children. It makes sense that two available par- ents support education better than one. If a single parent needs to do chores and make dinner during homework time, then providing help to children is more stressful or perhaps unavail- able. On average, there is less supervision of schoolwork and less involvement in school activities when parents are divorced. Two parents also have a wider breadth of knowledge to help explain homework, if necessary. For example, if Dad does not know science as well as Mom, and Mom is not around, academic performance potentially suffers. And psychological adjustment in general affects academic achievement. Elevated conflict and stress diminish psychological well-being, which may have a negative effect on academic performance (Anthony, DiPerna, & Amato, 2014; Potter, 2010).

Goodshoot/Thinkstock ሁ Familial conflict has a negative effect on

children, whether or not parents are divorced.

Critical Thinking What advice would you give to children who witness a great deal of conf lict in their homes?

Section 13.5Family and Home Environment

Another consequence of divorce is a drop in standard of living (especially for mothers), since there are usually two households to support instead of one. However, overall, effective par- enting and other social factors often mediate to provide emotional security and enhance psy- chological resiliency. Once again, differences between divorced and intact families are much smaller than variances within each group. In fact, conflict in the home of married parents is associated with children feeling less secure and having more conduct problems, as is the case for children of divorced parents who fight (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010; Hetherington & Elmore, 2003).

Blended Families The increase in divorce and of children born to single mothers has led to remarriages and a significant increase in blended families. Blended families are difficult to compare with either intact families or other blended families since blended families can have many dif- ferent compositions. For research purposes, a blended family usually consists of a married couple that has at least one stepchild living with them. In reality, though, blended families can consist of half-siblings, stepsiblings, stepchildren, and sometimes grandparents or other relatives who take over parenting roles. Additionally, a child may “live” with a single parent most of the time yet “visit” a remarried parent. And whereas over 10 million children live with stepparents, a substantial number also live with cohabiting couples who have not married. Therefore, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the effects on development within nontraditional families.

The lack of a consistent description of a blended family parallels the ambiguity of roles that often exist, particularly in families with older children. Children, especially daughters, often resist sharing their parents with a new partner. Happiness among intact couples is positively associated with parent-child relationships; however, the opposite is true in blended families. That is, biological child-parent relations deteriorate as the quality of the remarried parent’s spousal relationship increases. Self-concept of biological children may lean toward more con- fusion (see Section 12.1) when a biological parent divides time and affection among the bio- logical children and stepchildren (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992).

Blended families can also contribute to positive adjustment. Many of the negative effects of divorce discussed earlier can be reversed. For instance, shared finances bring about a higher standard of living, and there are more people in the home to help with academics. Although roles may be awkward, especially at first, more household members can also mean fewer individual chores and less overall stress. Family premarital counseling is often successful in promoting these outcomes and helping to integrate future roles in the family.

Gay and Lesbian Parents Though there remains a bit of controversy over general conclusions and research methodol- ogy (e.g., Marks, 2012; Regnerus, 2012), growing evidence largely finds that children who are raised in gay and lesbian households fare just as well as other children. Research has not revealed a difference in quality of parent-child relationships, cognitive development, social competence, emotional development, or gender- and self-identity, including in romantic rela- tionships. Sexual orientation of the children remains unaffected. Some studies show differ- ences in academic performance, but that is probably related to SES rather than sexuality. In essence, outcomes for children raised by gay and lesbian parents are similar to outcomes of

Wrapping Up and Moving On

other children (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Crowl, Ahn, & Baker, 2008; Manning, Fettro, & Lamidi, 2014; Patterson & Wainright, 2011).

Helicopter Parents Regardless of family constellation or sexual orientation, sometimes parents in the United States are accused of providing support that is too intense, in a sense hovering over their adult or nearly-adult children. These helicopter parents provide an abundance of financial or emotional support, often several times per week. Research has indeed shown that overly involved parents negatively affect the psychological well-being of their college-age children (Schiffrin et al., 2014). It is suggested that helicopter parenting intrudes on self-confidence and autonomy and can contribute to relatively higher levels of depression. However, it may be that the reverse is true: Perhaps some parents sense the vulnerability of their children and try to “help” by being overly involved. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

But research has also found that “intense support” does provide benefits and is an important part of the transition that characterizes emerging adulthood. (Fingerman et al., 2012). Eth- nic minorities especially do not view excess involvement as unusual or detrimental (Qian, 2012). Among many ethnic minorities, it is much more common to have multigenerational households, for children to remain at home until they get married, and for parents to support adult children whenever possible. To a great many families, these labels simply do not apply. Regardless of any possible negative effects, these parents are likely to be far more desirable than the neglectful parents described earlier or those who have difficulty forming attachment.

S E C T I O N R E V I E W Summarize factors related to family structure that contribute to child and adolescent development.

Wrapping Up and Moving On Infants are capable of forming positive attachment relationships with multiple individuals, including mothers, fathers, and a variety of others. Although Bowlby theorized that mothers were biologically predisposed to form unique relationships with their children, cross-cultural research indicates that much of the variance in attachment behavior may be due to differ- ences related to styles of interaction.

It is clear that parents who are sensitive and engaged provide healthy support for their chil- dren. In general, children with available, caring parents are less likely to take part in seri- ous or prolonged delinquent behaviors. Research also indicates that parents who are more authoritative and avoid physical punishment generally provide better outcomes for their children. Although blended families provide special challenges, they can also be rewarding. Additionally, there do not appear to be any special problems associated with gay and lesbian parents. Issues related to the development of sexuality and gender in childhood are the spe- cific focus of the next module.

Summary and Resources

Summary and Resources • Unlike bonding, attachment is a two-way developmental process. John Bowlby was

interested in how social experiences with primary caregivers affect relationships throughout the lifespan. His attachment theory consists of four phases. Probably due to an evolutionary adaptation, when infants are born they can form attachment relationships with virtually any available adult.

• Mary Ainsworth joined Bowlby’s research team and years later devised the Strange Situation to measure individual differences in attachment behaviors. She identified specific patterns in children’s attachment relationships, including secure attached, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant. A fourth type was added later, referred to as disorganized-disoriented.

• Infants can have multiple attachments. Like mothers, fathers form special attach- ments with their children. Unlike conclusions reached in research with mothers, it has been more difficult to identify specific processes involved in father-child attachment.

• Longitudinal research generally shows that securely attached infants have decidedly better immediate and long-range outcomes. Various studies have found securely attached infants have better relationships with parents during adolescence, have better social skills, and better dating and spousal relationships years later.

• Four styles of parenting are moderately predictive of psychological differences in children. Parenting styles are associated with types of discipline (or lack of disci- pline) and emotional warmth.

• It is important to evaluate parenting style within a cultural context. What some observers see as strict is interpreted by others as emotionally supportive. Research predicts better outcomes for children whose parents support the use of authorita- tive parenting.

• Spanking remains a controversial subject. The vast majority of parents in the United States use spanking as a form of discipline, though there are always alternatives. The move to ban spanking has accelerated worldwide, but the United States has no seri- ous pending legislation at the federal level.

• Child maltreatment, especially neglect, is not always easily evident. Although abused children are clearly at risk for psychological turmoil and maladaptive behavior, research shows that resilient children can overcome childhood trauma.

• The typical family has changed in recent generations. Divorce and blended families are common. Availability, warmth, support, and the absence of conflict in the home appear to be the most important factors in promoting healthy outcomes for children, regardless of family structure.

Key Terms abuse “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emo- tional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm” (U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, 2013, p. ix).

ambivalent infants See insecure-resistant (or ambivalent) infants.

attachment The strong emotional connec- tion that infants show toward their primary caregivers. A developmental process that begins to emerge around 6 months of age.

Summary and Resources

authoritarian parenting A parenting style characterized by relatively less warmth, rigid rules, and relatively harsher punish- ment for misbehavior.

authoritative parenting A parenting style that is generally warm and supportive and considers the child’s point of view.

blended families A broad term that usually refers to a married couple who has at least one stepchild living with them.

disorganized-disoriented infants Infants with the least securely attached pattern of behavior in the Strange Situation. Infants display contradictory, unpredictable behav- ior. Often associated with abuse or neglect.

helicopter parents A specific subculture of (usually wealthy) parents who “hover” over their children instead of encouraging inde- pendent behavior.

insecure-avoidant infants Infants with an attachment behavior characterized by indif- ference when mothers return in the Strange Situation.

insecure-resistant (or ambivalent) infants In the Strange Situation, infants with this attachment pattern show a degree of distress. They tend to demand closeness and yet fight it, resulting in a display of ambivalence.

neglectful parenting A parenting style characterized by poor supervision that often results in delinquent behavior from children.

permissive parenting A parenting style characterized by warmth, but few demands.

secular change A relatively long-term pat- tern of variation.

securely attached infants Infants with a pattern of attachment behavior that indi- cates comfort and security with a primary caregiver.

Strange Situation A standardized testing procedure designed to evaluate stranger anxiety.

Web Resources See links below for additional information on topics discussed in the chapter.

Anxiety

http://www.adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/children

Conduct Disorder

http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/Facts_for_ Families_Pages/Conduct_Disorder_33.aspx

Depression

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml

Jerome Kagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGjO1KwltOw&feature=related

Summary and Resources

Kibbutz

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/kibbutz.html

Psychopathology

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/psychopathology.htm

Strange Situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU&feature=related