Family Types

chapter11.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Family Types

257

Cultural Influences on Parenting

CHAPTER 11

Much of Chapter 10 focused on diversity in contemporary family struc-tures. This chapter will address diversity as it derives from ethnic, racial,or national groups. Given that parenting occurs in a context and that culture provides much of that context, it should come as no surprise that child rearing differs considerably among different cultures. This point was first made in Chapter 5, in the section on the determinants of parenting.

Cultural Diversity Among North American Parents

Socioeconomic Status and Parenting Poverty and Parenting Affluence and Parenting

Parenting in Minority Groups

African Americans Latinos

Asian Americans Immigrants

Parenting in Different Countries

Religion and Parenting

Chapter Preview: True or False?

• Wealthy children have fewer problems than poor children do.

• Some parents discipline their children by locking them outside the home.

• By 2030, less than half of the children born in the United States will be White.

Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from umuc on 2020-12-01 12:05:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Cultural variation presents a problem when considering what constitutes effec- tive parenting. If parents from different cultures rear their children differently, how does someone determine what is the best way to parent? As the anthropologist John Ogbu (1988) cautioned, child-rearing patterns and associations should not be derived from one group or culture and applied toward an evaluation of another group or culture. To do so creates a deficit model: One culture or group will be deemed inadequate compared to the other. Instead, Ogbu recommended a cultural- ecological approach that seeks to understand the culturally defined tasks and adap- tive competences of children. Sandra Graham voiced a related concern in 1992. She pointed out that a serious problem with psychological research was the lack of diversity among participants, as revealed by a common refrain in the method sec- tion of studies: “Most of the subjects were White and middle class.” Since then, increasing attention has been devoted to understanding the nature of parenting as it is influenced by the environment and culture. What is culture? Although many definitions have been proposed, a useful defin-

ition is “the way of life of a people, including both the external, socially constructed environments for living . . . and the internalized rules, expectations, and values that guide communication, thinking, and behavior” (Harkness, Keefer, & Super, 1999, p. 108). From this perspective, the child and environment are viewed as active and interactive systems. Family members’ behavior is then considered as the product of adaptation to a particular cultural context. Culture relates to parenting and children’s development because it forms the

cultural niche within which parent-child relationships occur (Harkness & Super, 2006). The niche consists of three main components:

• the physical and social environment, • customs of child rearing and child care, and • the parent’s psychology (beliefs, values, attitudes).

The physical and social environment of child rearing is perhaps the most obvi- ous feature of cultural differences. Some children live in one-room, thatched huts in a rural environment. Other children occupy spacious urban mansions. In some cultures, the social environment consists of an extended family that may number more than a dozen people. In other cultures, it is not unusual to find a family size of two, such as in single-parent families. The second component of the cultural niche concerns the customs of child rear-

ing and child care. One custom that demonstrates cultural differences appeared in Chapter 3: co-sleeping with infants (see Box 3.2). Infants in many cultures routinely sleep in the same bed with their parents, a practice that is much less common among European Americans. Similarly, there are cultural differences around the world in breastfeeding practices. In the United States, almost 70% of American mothers breastfeed for at least a short time. However, African Americans, adolescent moth- ers, and mothers of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely to breastfeed (Ryan, Wenjun, & Acosta, 2002). In many other countries, by contrast, the rate of breastfeeding at birth is close to 100%, as was found in migrant mothers living in the slums of Turkey (Ergenekon-Ozelci, Elmaci, Ertem, & Saka, 2006). A third example

258 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

illustrating cultural differences is how infants are transported. In the United States, infants are generally held in one hand on the left side or pushed in a stroller. Infants in many African cultures are carried on a parent’s back. These differences in child- rearing practices are not simply intriguing cultural differences. They likely have sub- tle influences on a child’s physical, social, and cognitive development. The third component of the cultural niche consists of parents’ beliefs and values,

also known as ethnotheories (Harkness & Super, 2006). Some of these theories are based on folk wisdom and cultural beliefs, passed down over generations. For example, grandmothers in the Kurdish tribe in Israel subscribed to the belief that neonates could not see until they were 30 days old (Frankel & Roer-Bornstein, 1982). Others parts of ethnotheories are informed by a mixture of sources that can include culture; religion; advice from relatives and friends, pediatricians, books, and magazines; and research findings. The role of context and cultural influences figured prominently into

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory of development (Chapter 2). In particular, his macrosystem level of influence explicitly includes cultural influences (as well as those of social class and laws) on development. Cultural influences also permeate the exosystem (through such contexts as the workplace) and the mesosys- tem (or system linking microsystems), and they can be found in themicrosystem (or the immediate context of a child).

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 259

Illustration 11.1 A family in Yemen goes to market.

Source: Photograph by J. P. Bell.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

This chapter addresses two types of cultural diversity. First, we will consider cul- tural variation in the United States and how parenting differs across socioeconomic statuses as well as among ethnic and racial groups. Next we’ll examine cross- cultural research concerning parenting in different countries. It should be remem- bered throughout this chapter that there is always diversity within diversity; although tendencies exist within cultural groups, considerable variation persists.

Cultural Diversity Among North American Parents

The United States today is a highly diverse culture in terms of racial and ethnic minorities and immigrants from all over the globe. However, it did not begin that way. Native Americans, the first inhabitants of the region, were diverse in them- selves and estimated to have a population of perhaps 2 million during the early 17th century. Systematic arrivals of non–Native Americans began with the landing of the Mayflower in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620. Families came in search of reli- gious freedom or new opportunities. Slaves from Africa began arriving later. By 1697, slaves comprised 20% of the population of New York. By the early 18th cen- tury, African Americans made up almost 70% of the population of South Carolina and 40% of the population of Virginia (Mintz, 2004; Mintz & Kellogg, 1988). Another major source of diversity came in the form of immigrants seeking a

better life. In the late 1800s, mostly European immigrants began arriving in New York and (as of 1892) were processed through Ellis Island. By 1910, 28% of all children in the United States lived in immigrant families (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008). Latinos—from Central and South America as well as the Caribbean—have provided another major source of diversity. They now make up 14% of the nation’s population. Each year, about 1.8 million new legal immigrants settle in the United States (Migration Policy Institute, 2007). About 10% of them are refugees from war or from political, social, or ethnic oppression (Singer & Wilson, 2006). Today, about 23% of children in the United States are being raised in immigrant families, a rate not too different from that of 100 years ago (Hernandez et al., 2008). Cultural diversity in American families is generally investigated by one of two

techniques: examining differences of socioeconomic circumstances and/or looking at ethnic/racial background. Let’s begin here by discussing the role of the SES of a family unit and then looking at the two economic extremes: the poor and the affluent.

Socioeconomic Status and Parenting

SES is considered one of the most important determinants of parenting (Chapter 5), and it’s one of the most widely studied constructs in social science (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). SES is not easily quantified, but it’s commonly deter- mined on the basis of parental occupation, highest educational degree obtained, and income. It is a convenient variable that serves as a proxy to represent very dif- ferent physical and social environmental experiences for children. Differences in

260 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

SES are closely linked to variations in three types of resources that affect children’s development:

• financial capital (money); • human capital (the availability, involvement, and motivation of other people to promote a child’s development); and

• social capital (access and connections to others in the community, including providers of medical care).

But SES is not just linked to resources; it is also associated with parenting in at least three ways: social cognition, traits, and behaviors (Bornstein & Bradley, 2003). Studies regarding parental social cognition have identified SES effects in variables such as values, expectations, and self-perceptions. Recall from Chapter 5 Kohn’s theory that lower-SES parents value conformity in their children in contrast to higher-SES parents, who value self-directedness. SES differences are also found in mothers’ expectations and self-perceptions.Mothers from higher-SES groups, com- pared with lower-SES mothers, tend to have higher expectations about their infants and children. Lower-SES mothers perceive less control over their children’s out- comes than do higher-SES mothers (Brody, Flor, & Gibson, 1999; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995). A trait approach to parenting reveals further differences linked to SES. Higher-

SES parents engage in more authoritative parenting; those of low SES are more likely to be either authoritarian or permissive (Glasgow,Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997). What about SES and specific parenting behaviors? Differences attributable to

SES have been found in such areas as verbal interaction, discipline and control, and management. For example, mothers in higher-SES families, compared with lower- SES mothers, talk to their children more often and with speech characterized by more variety, syntactic complexity (how words are put together), and questions (Hoff-Ginsburg, 1998). The behavioral differences attributable to SES are some- times more subtle and limited to particular areas. A study that compared the expe- riences of African American infants in low-, middle-, and high-SES homes is described in Box 11.1. A more dramatic and commonly found SES difference concerns the use of phys-

ical punishment as a socialization tool. As far back as 1936, researchers discovered that lower-SES parents more frequently report they use physical punishment to dis- cipline their children than do higher-SES parents (Gecas, 1979).More than 70 years later, studies continue to find large SES effects in the use of physical punishment (Gershoff, 2002). What accounts for this difference? According to research by Ellen Pinderhughes and her colleagues (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000), the answer lies in a combination of stress levels, perceptions of their children, and cognitive-emotional processes such as parental beliefs about the util- ity of physical force to resolve conflict. Based on structural equation modeling, it was found that lower-SES parents disciplined in a more reactive way—in part as a consequence of their stress levels—compared with higher-SES parents.

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 261

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Another way of considering SES effects on parenting is to examine child rearing at the two extremes of SES—those living in poverty and those residing in affluence.

Poverty and Parenting

When a family has inadequate financial resources to meet its daily needs, members are living in poverty, and this condition brings with it a variety of prob- lems. How is poverty status determined? The U.S. Census Bureau measures poverty by family income, adjusting the figure depending on family size and composition as well as current inflation. For 2008, the poverty threshold for a two-parent family with two children was $22,207. Currently, 37 million Americans (12.6% of the pop- ulation) live below this “poverty line.” Overall, 19% of children are being raised in poverty. This translates to 13.4 million children, an increase from 12.2 million children in 2000. The percentage of children raised in poverty is much higher within minority groups. Poverty afflicts 36% of African American children, 32% of American Indian and Alaskan Native children, and 29% of Latino children but 11% of non-Hispanic White children (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). What are the ramifications of living in poverty? Foremost, it means living in a

poor-quality physical environment. Children in poverty live in toxic environ- ments—both literally and figuratively. Many are raised in poor urban neighbor- hoods (labeled “war zones”) (Garbarino et al., 1991), exposed to toxins such as lead paint or polluted air and water, and plagued by crime, drugs, and violent gang-related activity. In a multiethnic sample of poor fourth and fifth graders in Detroit, 89% of the children regularly heard gunfire, 66% had seen someone mugged, and 25% had witnessed a stabbing or shooting. Many of the children had

262 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Babies’ Experiences in Different SES Groups

How does SES affect the infants born into it? One study compared the experi- ences of 3- to 4-month old African American infants from three SES groups: low (most families had an annual income of less than $10,000), middle (most incomes in the $35,000 to $55,000 range), and upper (average income above $80,000) groups. The researchers (Fouts, Roopnarine, & Lamb, 2007) observed infants for 12 hours over four days to examine 16 different behaviors, including social interactions, sleeping, smiling, vocalizing, self-play, fussing, and crying. Although all the infants slept and were vocalized to for similar amounts of

time, upper-SES infants differed from the middle- and lower-SES infants in sev- eral ways. They vocalized and fussed less but engaged in more self-play. They also received more verbal affection and soothing responses. Lower-SES infants interacted more with relatives. It is clear that the lower-SES infants did not expe- rience social deprivation, although they were experiencing a different social envi- ronment than the other children. How differences like these subsequently translate into different child outcomes remains to be seen.

BOX 11.1

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

themselves been victimized: 65% reported being assaulted, 44% had been threatened, 26% had been chased by gangs, 24% had been mugged, and 21% had been at home when the place was burglarized (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001). Poverty also means crowded and noisy living spaces; frequently changing hous-

ing situations; unemployment or low-paying jobs; underfunded, poor-quality day care and schools; and—for minority members especially—discrimination. Children who are first- or second-generation Americans often face language hur- dles as well. For these and other reasons, poverty has powerful effects on children’s develop-

ment. Those raised in poverty are at considerable risk for a wide variety of prob- lems, including poor physical and mental health, social incompetence, cognitive and school achievement challenges, and a higher likelihood of becoming victims of abuse. Many of these problems co-occur. In fact, poor children are 1.3 to 6.8 times as likely to have learning or behavior problems, to become a teen parent, or to be a victim of child maltreatment (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997). Many of the problems closely linked to poverty are listed in Table 11.1. The effects of poverty reach beyond environment to permeate the quality of par-

enting. The impact of poverty on parenting has been most extensively documented using the HOME (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment) assessment, developed by Robert Bradley and Bettye Caldwell (1984). This instrument consists of both a parent interview and observations of the home and parent-child interactions during the interview. The nine subscales of the Preschool version of the HOME are listed in Table 11.2.

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 263

Physical Health Social and Emotional Adjustment

Premature birth

Birth defects

Malnutrition

Obesity

Asthma

Increased blood lead levels

Problems with self-regulation

Low effectance/motivation

Anxiety disorders

Aggression, delinquency

Relationship difficulties

Competence and Achievement

Attention difficulties (ADHD)

Mental retardation

Learning disabilities

Poor grades and dropping out

Lower college attendance

Table 11.1 Problems in Children and Youth Associated With Poverty

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Researchers using the HOME instrument have documented that poverty affects at least seven of the nine parenting tasks identified by Bradley (2007) (which were first presented in Chapter 1):

• providing safety • ensuring adequate sustenance • giving adequate stimulation

264 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

I. Learning Stimulation

• Child has toys that teach color, size, shape. • Family buys and reads a daily newspaper.

II. Language Stimulation

• Child is encouraged to learn the alphabet. • Mother uses correct grammar and pronunciation.

III. Physical Environment

• Building appears safe. • House is reasonably clean and minimally cluttered.

IV. Warmth and Acceptance

• Parent praises child’s qualities twice during visit. • Parent caresses, kisses, or cuddles child during visit.

V. Academic Stimulation

• Child is encouraged to learn colors. • Child is encouraged to learn to read a few words.

VI. Modeling

• Parent introduces visitor to child. • Child can express negative feelings without reprisal.

VII. Variety in Experience

• Child is taken on outing by family member at least every other week. • Child eats at least one meal per day with mother and father.

VIII. Physical Punishment

• Parent does not scold or derogate child more than once. • Parent neither slaps nor spanks child during visit.

Table 11.2 The Home Inventory (preschool version) With Examples of Subscale Items

Source: Bradley & Caldwell, 1984.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

• supporting socioemotional development • creating structure • maintaining monitoring • forming social connections

Poverty interferes with or degrades these processes. Several researchers have described how poverty affects many dimensions of family life and creates wide- spread environmental inequities for children (e.g., Evans, 2004). Children in poverty are likely to face more family conflict and turmoil, unstable and chaotic households, and separation from loved ones. These children also receive less social support, and their more authoritarian parents provide less warmth, cognitive stimulation, and responsive parenting. Economic hardship, of course, diminishes a parent’s capacity for supportive, consistent, and involved caregiv- ing, in part because it results in depression (McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, & Borquez, 1994). Children raised in poverty watch more TV, are read to less often, and have less access to books or computers. No wonder these children are prone to many more problems than their more fortunate peers. Vonnie McLoyd (1990) developed a model of how poverty affects parenting and, in turn, children. Her model, as tested by Nievar and Luster (2006), with some adaptations, is found in Illustration 11.2.

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 265

Financial Stressors

Psychological Distress

Marital Conflict

Child Behavior Problems

Parenting • Low Involvement • Harsh Punishment • Low Warmth

Illustration 11.2 Model of How Poverty Affects Parenting

Source: Based on Nievar & Luster, 2006.

Not all parenting is adversely affected by living in low-income urban neighbor- hoods. Some parents respond to this dangerous environment in a variety of ways to try to counteract or at least buffer their children from some of the potentially dam- aging experiences (Burton & Jarrett, 2000). Reactions by some parents include heightened commitment to their role as a parent, modifying their parenting prac- tices to protect their children, and seeking out resources and opportunities for their children. Despite the collective wealth of the United States, the fact that almost one child

out of five is being raised in poverty is a troubling statistic. When thinking about minority children, that rate goes up to about one child in three. Indeed, it is difficult for many of us to imagine how a family of four can live on $21,000 a year. It is even harder to imagine how one fifth of the world’s population (1 billion people) can sur- vive on less than $1 a day. See Box 11.2 for a brief description of these families.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Affluence and Parenting

At the other end of the SES continuum are affluent families, technically defined as families earning greater than twice the country’s median income (the median income in the United States is currently $61,500). Few studies of these families are available, perhaps in part because these children are assumed to be at low risk for problems. But are they? A review of the limited literature (Luthar, 2003) identified some of the adjustment problems of children from these wealthy families. They included anxiety, depression, and substance use (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs). Other researchers have also found that affluent youth are at risk for emotional problems (Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider, 2000). Two major sources of problems in affluent families are disconnectedness within

the family and inordinate pressure to achieve (Luthar & Becker, 2002). Children of affluent families perceive their parents as emotionally and physically unavailable— to the same extent as youth raised in poverty. A lack of after-school supervision was associated with externalizing problems (Luthar & Latendresse, 2005). These prob- lems can be exacerbated by affluent parents who might lack a close social support network and feel a need to keep private their problems. These parents are reluctant and slow in seeking professional help for their hurting children.

266 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Surviving on $1 a Day

According to the World Bank, about 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day. Another 1.5 billion people live on $2 a day. The extremely poor typically live in families of 6 to 12 people. What are the ramifications for parenting and children’s development in such extreme poverty? These parents spend their time trying to survive and eke out an existence.

They survive by subsistence farming or working as laborers. According to two professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the extreme poor do manage to make it without spending all of their money on subsistence food (Banerjee & Duflo, 2007). They spend 56% to 78% of their income on food, 4% to 8% on alcohol and tobacco, and 10% on festival or family events (such as weddings and funerals). Less than 1% is spent for entertainment. They have little to spend on their children’s education (an average of 2%), and children help out instead by working as laborers or perhaps selling goods. Families living in extreme poverty face many hardships. They deal with

hunger and malnutrition. Their access to health services, clean water, and san- itation is limited at best. The educational opportunities for the children are inadequate and underfunded. What’s more, these families are particularly vul- nerable to economic problems, natural disasters, and crime. The only good news is that there are about half as many of these families now as there were 30 years ago.

BOX 11.2

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

A third cause of youth problems in affluent families is the parents’ excessive focus on acquiring possessions (materialism). According to Tim Kasser (2002), who has studied these families:

• They value money, work, and possessions. • They model consumerism (by their shopping habits and responses to advertisements).

• They devote energy to making money and purchasing, rather than to family time.

• They reinforce valued child behavior with gifts or money.

Materialism and consumerism are associated with unhappiness because the desire for more and more possessions forces us into a more frantic pace of life, causing stress, strain, and neglected relationships (Kasser, 2002). Think about the parents-as-guides model of child rearing. What materialistic parents are doing— either intentionally or otherwise—is shaping their children’s values in, perceptions of, and orientation toward the external world. Happiness becomes linked to acquir- ing fashionable clothes, the latest cell phone, the lightest and fastest computer, and the biggest and most luxurious car.

Parenting in Minority Groups

In what ways do minority parents—parents from ethnic groups other than European Americans—differ in their parenting? What are the sources of those dif- ferences? Early research into ethnic and minority parenting adopted a deficit model: Minority parents were deficient in parenting when compared to White middle-class parents. More recent work focuses on identifying why differences in observed parenting may be adaptive for their particular culture and how minority members are resilient in the face of discrimination, economic hardship, and other difficulties (Garcia Coll & Pachter, 2002). Ethnic and minority families experience life differently than do families in the

majority. First, they face racism, prejudice, and discrimination, which leads to con- tinued economic and geographic isolation (McAdoo, 2002). The forms the dis- crimination takes may not be as obvious as in the past, when African Americans had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from segregated water fountains differ- entiated by racial labels. But bigotry continues to be a social problem, particularly in the economic sphere. A second variable that differentiates ethnic and minority families is the process

of acculturation, which refers to how well the family has adapted to the norms and values of the majority society. The more acculturated minority parents become, the more their child-rearing beliefs mirror those of the majority culture (Savage & Gauvain, 1998). Acculturation is a dynamic process occurring over time; it is mul- tidimensional and bidirectional. Some aspects of culture heritage can be retained while other dimensions undergo change (Garcia Coll & Pachter, 2002).

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 267

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

We next consider how child rearing differs among the three major minority groups in the United States: African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. Ironically, Native Americans—the original American parents—have been the focus of relatively little empirical child-rearing research (cf., MacPhee, Fritz, & Miller- Heyl, 1996).

African Americans

African Americans are the second-largest minority group in the United States, as they comprise about 13.4% of the population. Although there is a considerable amount of intragroup variability among this population, several common parent- ing features have been identified. However, these features are based on African American mothers. Despite the fact that 47% of these families include fathers, the men are rarely studied beyond the question of how involved they are in the family (Coley & Chase-Landsale, 1999; Letiecq & Koblinsky, 2004; Roopnarine, 2004). The single most commonly reported characteristic of African American moth-

ers is that they tend to assume authoritarian parenting styles (Brody & Flor, 1997; Hill, Murry, & Anderson, 2005). Gene Brody has labeled it, based on his research in the rural South, a “no-nonsense” style. The primary attributes of the trait are that

268 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Illustration 11.3 An African American family enjoys playing a game of dominoes.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

the parents value respect for authority and quick compliance. In contrast to European Americans, African American mothers show lower levels of emotional support and warmth—interpreted by some researchers as an effort to toughen up their children in preparation for future hardships. A second characteristic attributed to African American parents is a reliance on

physical punishment. Indeed, a number of studies indicate that they are apt to spank their children more frequently than White parents do (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997a; Dodge, McLoyd, & Lansford, 2005). Through the use of physical punishment, African American parents back up their no-nonsense style and desire for immediate compliance with a swift and painful punishment. However, on closer examination, the evidence is conflicting. In some studies,

race is confounded with SES and/or contextual effects (such as stress). Other stud- ies find considerable variability among African American mothers (e.g., Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992). Indeed, in studies that control for SES, the relation between race and physical punishment is less likely to be found. In other studies, when the neighborhood characteristics are taken into account, some of the initial race differences regarding discipline disappear (Pinderhughes et al., 2000). The dis- ciplinary practices of African American mothers are also affected by education and depression (Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999). More research is needed to deter- mine whether African American race, per se, is a reliable determinant of spanking.

Latinos

Latino (Hispanic is another term used) families are the largest and most diverse minority group in the United States. About 15% of the nation’s population is clas- sified as Latino (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008c). The group includes individuals from many different countries and recent immigrants as well as those families that have been living in the United States for hundreds of years. Consequently, Latinos as a group do not subscribe to uniform parenting beliefs or practices (e.g., Leyendecker, Lamb,Harwood, & Schölmerich, 2002). Like African American parents, most of the Latino research participants have been mothers, not fathers (Cabrera & Coll, 2004). Commonly identified characteristics of Latino families are the values of respeto

and familismo (Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002). Respeto, or “proper demeanor,” refers to maintaining appropriate relatedness to others. It is most clearly manifested in parental teaching of children to respect and obey their parents as well as other adults (Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003). Familismo concerns valuing the importance of the family. This family-centered, multidimensional ori- entation has been related to enjoyment of family life, positive attitudes toward parents, and a large and close extended-family social network (Harwood et al., 2002; MacPhee et al., 1996). Due to the heterogeneity of the Latinos, there is inconsistent evidence about

whether Latinos engage in particular parenting practices. The results depend on such considerations as which Latino group is studied, their degree of acculturation, their SES, and the parenting variable that is being examined (Buriel, 1993). Consequently, some studies find Latino parents more permissive while others find them more

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 269

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

harsh. According to one study, Latino parents value conformity and obedience and are less likely to grant autonomy to their children than are European American families from a similar SES group. To enforce their values, Latino parents are more likely than European American parents to spank, scold, and criticize (MacPhee et al., 1996). As with the research concerning African Americans and spanking, more studies are needed to sort out the ways in which Latino parents are similar and different from other parents.

Asian Americans

Asian Americans make up 5% of the U.S. population. They originally came from countries such as China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and the Philippines. They are also a diverse group, and they do not adhere to one particu- lar child-rearing approach. Asian Americans have been labeled the “model minority” because of their high

academic achievement and career success (e.g., Sue & Okazaki, 1990). These families put great import on academic achievement. For example, 27% of all Americans have a college degree, but 42% of Asian Americans do. Despite their successes, a higher percentage of Asian Americans live in poverty (10%) than European Americans (8.2%). This can be accounted for by the large number of Asian immi- grants, as will be discussed below.

270 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Illustration 11.4 A Latino father reads with his two children.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

What accounts for the success of Asian Americans? Asian American parents differ from other Americans on certain values. For one, they place a high value on working hard to get ahead (Chao & Tseng, 2002). Education is regarded as the route to suc- cess, so Asian American parents consider it as a key socialization goal. Consequently, they put considerable emphasis and pres- sure on their children to perform well in school. Parents have high expectations and make sure their children work hard to achieve those ends. This emphasis on educa- tion does not necessarily mean monitoring homework more closely than do European American parents. However, it does mean promoting an intellectual orientation in the family climate and structuring a child’s daily schedule to ensure adequate time for school work. Asian American parents accomplish these goals by engaging in such activities as taking their children on educational outings (to museums, libraries) and restricting tele- vision viewing (Chao, 2000). Besides valuing education and hard

work, Asian American families value family loyalty, conformity, and social harmony, in line with their Asian cultural roots. These values were highlighted in a study com- paring parental goals in Chinese American, African American, Mexican American, and European American families (Suizzo, 2007). Across all four groups, the most valued goal was self-direction (considered very or extremely important), followed by kind- ness, tradition/conformity, and relatedness. Power and achievement had the lowest mean score across the four groups. As can be seen in Table 11.3, Chinese Americans showed evidence of acculturation because they did not differ in the goal of agency and self-direction from the European Americans or Mexican Americans, and their mean value was only somewhat below African Americans. They did however, have the highest mean on kindness and relatedness, as one would expect based on their cultural heritage.

Immigrants

The term immigrant refers to an individual living in the United States but born a citizen of another country (“first-generation” immigrant) or born in the United States to at least one foreign-born parent (“second-generation”). Immigrants are, as

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 271

Illustration 11.5 An Asian immigrant mother and her daughter work at a farmer’s market.

Source: Photograph by J. P. Bell.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

a group, diverse. They arrive in the United States frommany different countries (see Illustration 11.6) and for various reasons. Most seek economic opportunity. Some, classified as refugees, seek a safe haven from persecution due to race, nationality, political opinion, religion, or group membership. Since 1983, 2 million refugees have settled in the United States from such areas as the former USSR, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, and Cuba. Most children (79%) living with their immigrant parents were born in the

United States, and about 24% of them have at least one parent also born here (Hernandez et al., 2008). This means that there is considerable variation among and within immigrant families as to language proficiency, economic status, and the extent to which they have acculturated to the new country. Some immigrants do not want to modify their language, practices, or identity and thereby resist accul- turation in an effort to preserve their culture. For many parents, the conflict over cultural preservation versus acculturation is a continuing and unresolved issue in their lives (Farver, Narang, & Bhadha, 2002). Economic and language barriers are two central issues that immigrant families

face, and these issues affect their parenting.Many immigrants experience economic hardships. As discussed, living in poverty or near-poverty has dramatic effects on parenting.With regard to language, comfort in conversing in the new language was found to be a key determinant of immigrant parents’ involvement in their children’s education (Garcia Coll et al., 2000). Immigrant parents carry with them their values from their home countries

(more about these in the next section). For example, Chinese immigrants value promoting physical closeness, family relatedness, and interdependence while de- emphasizing a child’s individuality and uniqueness (Rothbaum et al., 2000). The closeness promoted among the immigrants did not extend to all domains, however. With regard to nudity in children up to the preschool years, less than one quarter (23%) of the immigrant Chinese parents thought that children’s nudity was accept- able, in contrast to most (85%) of the European American comparison group.

272 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Goals Chinese Americans

African Americans

Mexican Americans

European Americans

Tradition/conformity

Achievement

Relatedness

Self-direction

Kindness

4.0

2.7

3.4

4.5

4.4

2.7

3.0

4.8

4.3

4.2

2.8

2.9

4.6

4.3

3.4

1.9

3.4

4.5

4.0

Table 11.3 Parental Child-Rearing Goals in Four Groups of U.S. Mothers

Source: Suizzo, 2007.

Note: N = 343. Numbers are mean scale scores; higher numbers indicate greater importance.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Although many studies focus on identifying their differences, there are striking similarities among groups of immigrant parents. For example, in a study compar- ing parents from 27 countries living in New York City, four common themes emerged. The parents, irrespective of their country of origin, valued the impor- tance and centrality of the family, respect of the parents and elders, and the impor- tance of religion or spirituality. They also experienced the common struggle of dealing with the conflict over acculturation versus cultural preservation (McEvoy et al., 2005).

Parenting in Different Countries

The study of parenting in different countries is the only way to identify whether there are universals in child-rearing approaches and consequences. Through a care- ful examination of child-rearing similarities and differences, cultural effects can be revealed (Bornstein & Cheah, 2006). However, the vast majority of studies of

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 273

Mexico 40%

Caribbean 10–11%West Asia (China,

Japan, Korea) 10–11%

Europe, Canada, Australia 10–11%

Central America 5–7%

South America 5–7%

Indochina (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam)

5–7%

West Asia (Iran, Iraq, and other

Mideast countries) 5–7%

Russia 2–3%

Africa 2–3%

Illustration 11.6 Country or Region of Origin of Immigrant Families Living in the United States

Source: Hernandez et al., 2008, based on 2000 Census.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

parent-child relations have been conducted in Western cultures—by Western researchers—and there are inevitable biases caused by viewing other cultures from one’s own perspective. For example, the “correct” way to rear an infant, according to the Western lens, is the attachment model developed in England and the United States by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (Chapter 2). The model has been labeled the continuous care and contact model of infant development because the prototypic form is to have one adult providing sensitive care to the infant (Tronick, Morelli, & Ivey, 1992). However, some cultures engage in very different infant-rearing practices.

Consider the Efe (Pygmy) tribe, which lives in the Central African country of The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). These hunter-gatherers inhabit the tropical rain forests. Efe infants and toddlers experience a rich and intense social environment—beginning as neonates when they enjoy extensive handling by many caregivers, as well as being nursed by multiple women. During infancy, they spend only about half of their waking time with their mothers. By age 3, they are with their mothers less than 30% of the time (Tronick et al., 1992; Tronick, Morelli, & Winn, 1987). Being raised by multiple caregivers appears to be a social adaptation to such problems as high rates of illness and mortality as well as the heavy workload that these mothers have in terms of gathering food. Although not all hunter-gatherer societies practice extensive multiple-caregiver rearing, it does illustrate that what we assume to be the optimal infant-rearing practices is not universal. The study of cross-cultural views of parenting has been around since the work of

the anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict. Benedict studied child-rear- ing practices in several European countries, including Russia, where swaddling (wrapping infants tightly) was common, and Poland, where hardening infants was valued and practiced by letting babies cry and by beating children (recall John Locke’s prescriptions for hardening infants in Chapter 1). Since that time, a wide range of cross-cultural investigations into parenting values and practices can be found, which cover such topics as microanalytic studies of verbal interchanges in Japanese mother- preschooler dyads (Dennis, Talih, Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Mizuta, 2007) to parenting traits in Arab countries (Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, & Farah, 2006). Only through cross-cultural investigations can one answer questions about

whether there are universal processes operating in parent-child relationships. For example, there is strong evidence that harsh, coercive, and psychologically control- ling child rearing is associated with negative outcomes in children (as has been dis- cussed). But do those relations hold in other countries, where perhaps the meaning of harsh punishment may differ? The answer appears to be yes. For example, main- land Chinese parents who are more physically coercive and psychologically con- trolling have children who are more aggressive (Nelson, Hart, Yang, Olsen, & Jin, 2006). Similarly, a meta-analysis of 43 studies from around the world determined that children who feel rejected by their parents are more likely to have psychologi- cal adjustment problems compared with children who feel loved—regardless of geographic area, culture, race, language, or gender (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Cross-cultural studies are also used to better understand the sources and conse-

quences of child-rearing differences. The most intensively investigated example of cultural influences on childrearing lies in comparing parental values between Asian

274 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and Western countries. The beliefs of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (first mentioned in Chapter 1) underlie social norms in Japan, China, and other parts of Asia. Confucian social philosophy places high value on respecting elders, social connectedness, and harmony rather than assertiveness, self-discipline, and achieve- ment. However, parenting styles vary even within Asian cultures. For example, Chinese fathers are more controlling than Japanese fathers, and Japanese fathers perceive themselves as emotionally closer to their children than Korean fathers do, according to a review about Asian fathering (Shwalb, Nakazawa, Yamamoto, & Hyun, 2004). Studies comparing Asian values with those of Western parents find consistent

differences. Asians emphasize filial piety (“parents are always right”), respect for elders, group identification, harmony, self-discipline, and achievement. Sexuality is de-emphasized, and aggression is suppressed. The family is considered the funda- mental unit of society, and there is a strict hierarchical order of human relation- ships. These values are in turn reflected in child-rearing attitudes: Children are expected to show family loyalty, filial piety, and elder respect. Parents and elders are assumed to train and discipline youth in these cultural norms. Consequently, Chinese mothers are more restrictive in their child-rearing attitudes than European American mothers. However, when Chinese parents immigrate to the United States, their values become diluted by acculturation and soon fall more in between Chinese and American mothers (Chiu, 1987; Lin & Fu, 1990). A more general cross-cultural dichotomy concerns independence versus inter-

dependence, sometimes called individualism versus collectivism. Independence and individualism refer to the valuing of the individual’s goals as the preeminent consideration. The United States is a prime example of a culture that values inde- pendence and the individual. It is not hard to think of examples of unusual indi- viduals who stand out due to their hard work and talent, such as President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Madonna, and Tiger Woods. This valuing of individuality extends also to families, where the United States, as a society, values families’ rights to privacy and self-determination. In cultures that value interde- pendence or collectivism, personal goals are subordinate to the goals of the larger group, such as the family, employer, or community. Individuals living in collec- tivistic societies are defined more by group membership and position in the family than by individual characteristics or accomplishments. These two different value systems relate directly to competing developmental

goals of autonomy and relatedness. North American parents value and seek auton- omy (independence), self-directiveness, personal style, and social initiative in their children, as well as self-maximization to themselves (Chen & French, 2008; Leyendecker et al., 2002). In contrast, Asian societies value interdependence and norm-based behavior, where an individual fits in rather than stands out. How do these values translate into behavior? As Heidi Keller and Patricia

Greenfield (2000) described parenting in the United States and Western countries, the developmental path to independence involves dyadic attention between care- giver (mother) and infant, with lots of face-to-face exchanges that help to promote understanding of contingencies. Parents are also very involved in toy play and help children interact with objects. From these experiences, infants then learn to develop

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 275

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

expectancies and a sense of control that fosters the development of the self as a causal agent. The infants’ rudimentary sense of independence is also promoted by experiences such as being watched by babysitters, sleeping apart from the parent, and attending infant day care. As the children get older, parents promote individu- ality by encouraging exploration and recognizing how the children differ from sib- lings or peers. In countries where interdependence is valued, the path is different. For children

in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, socialization occurs in close body contact, giv- ing children a sense of warmth and relatedness with multiple caregivers. Child care occurs in the midst of other activities. Children then begin to learn about them- selves as coagents (joint partners) along with their caregivers, rather than being the single causal actor. Mothers also verbally emphasize relatedness (“We had fun together!”“Let’s play together with these toys”) instead of autonomy (“What do you want to do?” “When you finish that activity, we can leave”). Another manifestation in cultures that promote interrelatedness is the use of uniforms in school. All these types of experiences contribute to valuing feelings of interrelatedness and inter- dependence. A parent who values interdependence might discipline a misbehaving son not with a spank but by locking him outside of the house. Consider two examples of how interdependence is promoted and affects parent-

child relations. The West African Nso mothers of Cameroon carry their infants most of the day and share the same bed with all of their children; separation from infants is unimaginable. Negative signals from the infant get an immediate response with breastfeeding. Body contact and stimulation are common, in part to promote motor development so the child will be able to help with daily chores (Keller, Voelker, & Yovsi, 2005). When evaluating whether a parenting situation was pleas- ant or not, Central American mothers consider mutual enjoyment, child coopera- tion, and appropriateness of the child’s behavior. In contrast, European Americans enjoyed it when they could watch the child play by him- or herself but disliked it when they felt they had to keep the child entertained (Leyendecker et al., 2002) Another way parents can promote a sense of collectivism in their children is

through engaging in a particular parenting style. As Duane Rudy and Joan Grusec (2006) hypothesized and found, authoritarian parenting styles are likely to promote a sense of collectivism by negating individual choice. In a study of Canadian immigrant mothers from either Europe or Asia, those from the Far East did indeed endorse authoritarian parenting practices more than did the individualistic moth- ers. Another example can be found in views about infant sleeping patterns. American mothers believe that a child’s temperament is an important considera- tion when considering sleep practices, such as when and where to put the child to bed. In contrast, mothers from Holland do not recognize a child’s individuality as an important consideration in sleep schedules (Harkness & Super, 2006). Cultural differences can be readily recognized in ethnotheories of development—

a parent’s system of beliefs concerning the nature of an ideal child and how to socialize the child to achieve those values. Differences and similarities across cul- tures can be seen in child-rearing values mentioned by mothers in Greece, Taiwan, and the United States (Tamis-LeMonda, Wang, Koutsouvanou, & Albright, 2002).

276 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Only three values were shared by about 30% or more of the mothers: honesty, independence, and respect of others. In addition, Greek mothers were the most apt to identify respect of elders, loyalty to family, and religion or spiritual development. Mothers from Taiwan were likely to identify independence, getting along with others, good habits, and being polite. In contrast, the additional values mentioned by the most U.S. mothers were compassion, self-esteem, and sharing. See Table 11.4 for the percentage of mothers who mentioned each value. Cross-cultural investigations also reveal that cultures change—sometimes

rapidly. The world is becoming “flat” (that is, a level playing field) with increased urbanization, globalization, and ease of information flow (Friedman, 2005). In China, as the country moves to a market economy, some of its traditional values are being challenged or supplanted by Western ones. For example, the child-rearing value of interdependence is in a dynamic interplay with that of autonomy—and which one wins out appears to depend on such considerations as the particular culture, context, age of child, and state of economic change (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Another example of social change concerns arranged marriages, as is described in Box 11.3.

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 277

Greece Taiwan United States

Honesty

Respect of others/fairness

Independence

Respect elders

Loyalty to family

Religion/spirituality

Getting along with others

Good habits

Polite

Education/school

Curiosity

Self-esteem

Compassion/consideration

Sharing

Table 11.4 Mothers’ Child-Rearing Values in Three Countries

Source: Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2002.

Note: Numbers represent percentage of mothers to mention a value. Only the values brought up by at least 30% of one group of mothers (highlighted in boldface) are included.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Religion and Parenting

Worldwide, 86% of people claim to be a member of a religious group. In the United States, the majority (76%) of citizens consider themselves Christians. About 13% are nonreligious (atheist, agnostic, nonbelievers); 1.3% affiliate with Judaism; and fewer than 1% are adherents of Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism (www.adherents.com). Religion is particularly important once people become parents.Most (95%)married couples and parents report a religious affiliation, and 90% want their children to have some religious training (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001). All three of the world’s great deistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)

share an emphasis on the family and encourage parents to devote considerable time and attention to their children. It follows, then, that religious parents, compared to nonreligious parents, hold different values, allocate time differently, and involve their children in social networks associated with a religious community (Wilcox, 2002). Religious beliefs, like culture, provide a fundamental contextual influence on

how parents think about child rearing and their children. Religions supply long- term parenting goals through specifying desirable behavior, both in childhood and adulthood. Consequently, many religions and devotees responsible for interpreting the sacred texts have specific prescriptions for how to attain certain child-rearing goals.Muslim women, according to one interpreter, may work outside the home“as long as it does not interfere with her first duty as a mother, the one who first trains her children in the Islamic call. So her first, holy, and most important mission is to be mother and wife” (Stewart et al., 1999, p. 751).

278 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

What’s Love Got to Do With It? Parents and Arranged Marriages

Traditionally, in South Asia (India, Nepal, Pakistan) and many other parts of the world (such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East), marriage isn’t necessarily about love. Instead, it is about who your parents think will be a suitable partner. Parents take into account such factors as reputation and wealth of the family, vocation of the groom, appearance, and religion when choosing a mate for their child. How successful are parents at selecting suitable mates for their children? One index is the divorce rate. In India, about 7% of marriages fail (Giridharadas, 2008). The divorce rate in the United States (of first marriages within 15 years), by contrast, is 43% (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). The tradition of arranged marriages is changing as a consequence of expand-

ing educational experiences, exposure to other cultures, children enjoying greater contact with potential partners, and increased respect for a child’s autonomy (Ghimire, Axinn, Yabiku, & Thornton, 2006). Parents are increasingly considering their children’s opinions before making a determination of partners. In some places, a potential mate is now suggested by the youth and then accepted or rejected by the parents.

BOX 11.3

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

At their core, religions are concerned with what is to be valued in life. In a meta- analytic review of religious groups around the world, it was found that religious people shared the values of kindness, tradition, and conformity, while they disdained hedonism (Saroglu et al., 2004). Similarly, an analysis of 63 societies revealed that those adults who were more religious were also more likely to value tradition, obedience, respect for authority, and religious faith in their children, rather than independence and self-determination (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). There are many historical examples illustrating how religion shapes parenting

beliefs. One illustration provided in Chapter 1 concerned the beliefs of the Puritans. Children were perceived as born with “original sin,” and parents were instructed by their ministers to “break the will” of children to socialize them into faithful adults (Greven, 1977). In contrast, both Confucianism and Islam espouse the view (one also promulgated by the Catholic Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762) that children are inherently good, and they emphasize the role that parents play in children’s devel- opment (Stewart et al., 1999). A very different religious belief about the nature of children can be found in

many African, South Asian, and Native North American cultures. For many inhab- itants in those societies, children are believed to be reincarnations of ancestral spir- its. Consequently, a child’s personality, luck, spiritual journey, and fate are largely a consequence of that inherited spirit (Gottlieb, 2006; Mattis, Ahluwalia, Cowie, & Kirkland-Harris, 2006). Another religiously inspired conviction, one that highlights the potential pernicious role of the environment in development, can be found in parents who subscribe to a belief in the “evil eye.” The curse of the evil eye occurs when someone enviously admires an infant with a direct and extended look or with lavish praise and compliments. This belief, still held in Latin America, Caribbean countries, Northern Africa, Europe, and South Asia, reveals parental assumptions about the spiritual vulnerability of children (Mattis et al., 2006). Religion also relates to child rearing in a less newsworthy but more widespread

way: disciplinary beliefs. A variety of studies have found religion associated with child-rearing attitudes and parental responses to children’s misbehavior. In partic- ular, conservative Protestants (including Baptists, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals) believe that it is important to use physical punishment on misbehaving children. The justification can be found in five proverbs in the Old Testament as was dis- cussed previously in Chapters 1 and 7. However, other Christians cite the teaching in the New Testament as justification for their rejection of physical punishment. Consequently, conservative Christian parents have more positive attitudes toward and make more frequent use of physical punishment than do other Christians (including Roman Catholic, mainline Presbyterian, and Methodist) or those with no religious affiliations (de Roos et al., 2004; Ellison, 1996; Gershoff et al., 1999). For example, Illustration 11.7 depicts the likelihood of responding with a spank or reason in response to vignettes about children who continue to misbehave. The conservative Protestant parents were about twice as likely as the other parents to report they would respond to the child with a spank. In Cameroon, both Christian and Muslim parents shared harsher discipline per-

spectives than did the parents who adhered to traditional African religions, where

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 279

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

children are considered a divine gift, and ancestors will punish those who are cruel to them (Nsamenang & Lamb, 1995). Among Hindu,Muslim, and Christian moth- ers living in India, the Christian mothers had the most restrictive and punitive attitudes. Hindu mothers had the least restrictive attitudes. However, Christian mothers espoused warmer and more protective attitudes than did the Muslim mothers (Ojha & Pramanick, 1992). Research has empirically linked religion to several other types of parenting

behavior. In terms of involvement and the quality of social relationships, more reli- gious mothers and fathers are warmer toward (praise, hug, etc.) and enjoy more positive relations with their children than do less religious parents (Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000; King & Furrow, 2004). A negative association was observed between religiosity and maternal authoritarian behavior, but religiosity was not related to father behavior (Gunnoe et al., 1999). Infant-feeding practices have also been linked to religious involvement. In a study comparing the practices of Indian Hindu, Muslim, and Christian mothers, only about half of the Hindu mothers breastfed their infants, in contrast to 75% of the other mothers. Hindu mothers who did breastfeed were likely to wean their children earlier than did the other mothers (Ojha & Pramanick, 1992). Religion has also been linked to at least one other area of parental behavior—

coping with child medical or developmental problems (Mahoney et al., 2001). Debra Skinner and her colleagues (Skinner, Correa, Skinner, & Bailey, 2001), in a qualitative study of Mexican and Puerto Rican parents living in the United States,

280 PART III • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Mainline Protestant

Roman Catholic No Affiliation Conservative Protestant

Spank Reason

Illustration 11.7 Likelihood of Spanking and Reasoning Following Continued Child Misbehavior

Source: Gershoff et al., 1999.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

found that organized religion, as well as individual faith, served as important cop- ing mechanisms for parents of young children who were mentally handicapped or developmentally delayed.

Chapter Summary

This chapter focused on how culture influences parenting. Four categories of cul- ture were considered: SES, race/ethnicity, country, and religion. The United States is populated by a rich diversity of families and individuals. One source of diversity is SES, with families in poverty at one end of the continuum and affluent families at the other. Both types of families experience problems, although economic hard- ship has many more pervasive negative effects on parenting. The second major type of diversity in U.S. families is derived from minorities.

African American, Latino, and Asian American families are the three most preva- lent minority groups and have some unique parenting characteristics. Added to this mix is a constant arrival of new immigrants. However, it needs to be remembered that generalizing is hazardous due to the heterogeneity within groups. Cultural effects on parenting linked to two other variables were also reviewed.

First, parenting in different countries was addressed. Although most research into parenting has been conducted in North America, there are now enough studies from around the world to illustrate how child-rearing beliefs and actions can be affected by the country of residence. Second, the relation between religion and par- enting was discussed. Religion can be a potent source of parenting beliefs and behavior, as research is beginning to reveal.

Thought Questions

• How has your own particular cultural experience influenced you? Think of specific examples.

• Engage in a “cross-cultural” dialogue with someone from a different ethnic or cultural background. In what ways were your experiences different and similar?

• What are the pros/cons of a strong emphasis on either independence or interdependence in child-rearing strategies? Do you think Americans are out of balance? If so, how might parents become more balanced in their par- enting strategies?

• How have your religious or agnostic beliefs informed your views about child- rearing practices or children’s development? What about the views of your friends with different faith beliefs?

Chapter 11 • Cultural Influences on Parenting 281

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

9. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed