The Lifespan Parenting Project (LPP)
LDE299
Chapter2ParentingADynamicPerspective.pdf
27
Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting
CHAPTER 2
Introduction to Theory
Theory Defined Lay Theories and Parental Behavior Scientific Theories of Development
Major Theories of Parent-Child Relationships
Evolutionary Psychology Attachment Theory Social Learning and Social
Cognitive Theories
Bioecological Systems Theory Human Behavioral
Genetics Theory
Narrow Theories
Other Emotion-Based Theories
Control Theory Vygotsky’s Theory Family Systems Theory Role Theory
Chapter Preview: True or False?
• Freud proposed the first theory about the role of parents in their children’s development.
• It is harmful to love a child, according to one theorist.
• Evolutionary theory seeks to explain how parent-child behavior developed from hunter-gatherer societies.
Introduction to Theory
Johnny Depp, in the movie The Libertine, portrays the fascinating John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester (1647–1680). Wilmot epitomized a libertine, ignoring and
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
even spurning religious norms, contemporary morals, and culturally acceptable behavior. Wilmot spent much of his time drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, chas- ing women, and partying. He also wrote poetry that today would be called porno- graphic. However, he is also remembered for a witty sentence attributed to him about theories of child development: “Before I got married, I had six theories about bringing up children; now I have six children and no theories.” He was exaggerating: He only had four children when he died at age 33 from sexually transmitted diseases and alco- holism. But his quote underscores two key themes: First, everyone has ideas about child rearing. This idea was introduced in Chapter 1 with the description of “lay theories.” Wilmot’s second point is that once you actually have children to rear, the task is con- siderably more complicated than anticipated. Your prior theories often do not hold up.
Theory Defined
What are theories, and how do we use them? A theory is a guide for under- standing phenomena. A good theory will organize and integrate information, explain observable facts, and identify causal relations. It should specify causes of particular outcomes and should be testable, parsimonious, and able to generate predictions and incorporate new observations without having to be modified. For our purposes, theories provide the lens through which to view and understand parent-child relationships. Theories also provide guidance for how to identify and deal with child-rearing problems. Indeed, child-rearing theories held by parents, whether at a conscious level or not, shape how parents behave toward children.
Lay Theories and Parental Behavior
Lay theories of parent-child relations are sometimes captured in expressions and clichés. In the English language, several clichés highlight the theme of parental influence: “Like father, like son; like mother, like daughter;” “Chip off the old block;” “The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree;” “He’s the spitting image of his father;” and “Following in his father’s footsteps.”
Theories—whether lay or scientific—are important, because they prescribe how parents should behave. For example, some parents are under the mistaken notion that you can spoil infants by giving them too much attention. Learning theory is the implicit orientation here: If you give infants too much attention, they will learn to want it all the time. Recall from Chapter 1 the psychologist credited as being the father of behaviorism, John B. Watson. Based on his theoretical orientation, Watson (1928) warned about the dangers of love and affection. He wrote:
Never hug and kiss them, never let them sit in [sic] your lap. If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say good night. Shake hands with them in the morning. Give them a pat on the head if they have done an extraordi- narily good job of a difficult task. Try it out. In a week’s time you will find how easy it is to be perfectly objective with your child and at the same time kindly. You will be utterly ashamed of the mawkish, sentimental way you have been handling it. (pp. 81–82)
28 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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 example of how different child-rearing theories result in different actions occurs with sleep problems. Most parents face the problem of trying to get a toddler or preschooler to sleep. Unless they are ill or exhausted, most children would rather stay up. So, save for the parent who is using the medieval concoction of “quietness” (see Box 1.3), bedtimes can be a time of conflict in many households. Consider the mother who subscribes to the belief that if her son is allowed to delay bedtime, then the parent is encouraging (or reinforcing) noncompliance and giv- ing in to the child. This mother, whether she realizes it or not, is operating under a learning-theory orientation. Her solution might be to ignore the child’s cries or bids for a glass of water or another story. Ignoring may require shutting (or even locking) the child in his room and letting him plead or cry until he falls asleep (see Illustration 2.1).
An alternative parental orientation is based on emotions and would result in a very different course of action. Here, the mother might perceive her son as scared of the dark and in need of attention and reassurance. Consequently, she comforts the child and may read another story, lie down with him, or bring him into the parents’ bed. Thus, parental behavior is influenced by the child-rearing theory or theories to which a parent subscribes in a particular situation.
Often groups of parents can adhere to certain theories together. For instance, Puritans in colonial America had a clear theory of the source of problems in children and how to deal with them. This religious-driven theory about evil in children colored
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 29
Illustration 2.1 A Kurdish infant in northern Iraq lies in a crib with cloth bindings to keep the baby on the mattress in bed while the cradle is rocked from side to side.
Source: Photograph by J. P. Bell.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
their perceptions. These days, most people no longer harbor such theories about children. Rather, parents’ theories about children are varied and eclectic.
Scientific Theories of Development
For more than 100 years, formal theories about children’s development—and how parents influence that progress—have been proposed. Theoretical approaches to the study of parent-child relationships differ widely on a variety of fundamental dimensions. They contrast in their scope, viewing parent-child relationships either from a phylogenetic (development of the species over time) or an ontogenetic (development of individuals over their life span) perspective. The approaches also differ markedly in the importance they ascribe to parents as environmental influ- ences on their children’s development. Many, but not all, of the theories identify key mechanisms thought to affect how parents influence their offspring.
The first modern theory about children’s development was proposed by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). Although Freud is famous for his rich theory of the conscious and unconscious mind, his psychosexual theory (1936) is less well known. At the centerpiece of his developmental theory are five psychosexual stages. Freud hypothesized that children’s development progressed in a fixed and orderly sequence through discrete stages that include oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages. Between the phallic and genital stage is a period (stage) of latency in which the sex- ual energy is repressed and not located in any body part. During each stage, the child’s sexual energy is focused on a particular region—or erogenous zone. The stages, the relevant child ages, and the erogenous zones are listed in Table 2.1.
To become a psychologically well-adjusted adult, one must successfully pass through each stage and thereby step up to the next developmental level. Freud believed that maturation drove development, but he recognized that parents played an important role. If parents frustrated or blocked the child’s development through the stage, the child could become stuck, or “fixed,” in that particular stage. An orally fixated person, for example, might exhibit such symptoms as excessive talking, gum chewing, or smoking.
30 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Stage Name Age of Child Erogenous Zone
Oral Birth to 12 months Mouth
Anal 12 months to 3 years Anus
Phallic 3 to 6 years Genitals
Latency 6 to 12 years ———-
Genital 12 and older Genitals
Table 2.1 Freud’s Psychosexual Stages
Source: Freud, 1936.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
In addition to his psychosexual stage theory, Freud also wrote about how both mothers and fathers were uniquely important for development. He theorized that the mother-infant relationship is the prototypical one and that all subsequent rela- tionships are based on it. That is, the relationship established between the infant and mother is the model from which children form all subsequent relationships. If the mother does not love her child, the child enters future relationships with the mental burden that he or she is an unlovable person.
Fathers’ importance comes later in life, according to Freud. Fathers play an espe- cially prominent role in the moral development of their sons, according to Freud’s theory of identification. During the phallic stage, children identify with their same- sex parent. Freud believed that boys, around the age of 5, become attracted to their mother in what is commonly known as the Oedipal complex. Although the boy might be too young to know about sex, he knows his father enjoys special relations with his mother, and he wants this for himself. Those feelings, according to Freud, result in anxiety and fear: If a father learns about his son’s desires, the father may attack him or even amputate his penis! A boy resolves these anxious thoughts by identifying with (and imitating) his father. The child rationalizes, according to Freudian theory, that “If I copy my father, he will not harm me.” This process of identification then results in the development of the superego, or conscience (Emde, 1992).
Freud’s legacy is mixed. Although his theoretical ideas stimulated research and theory development in a variety of domains, his psychosexual theory has not been supported by empirical research. For example, two investigators used Freudian psy- chosexual theory to generate predictions concerning infant feeding practices and their development. They hypothesized that children who were breastfed were fed on demand rather than on a timetable, and were gradually weaned (versus abrupt weaning) would be more likely to successfully pass through the oral stage than other children, and therefore be less likely to show personality or behavioral problems. However, the investigators did not find any significant effects as a consequence of different feeding histories (Sewell & Mussen, 1952). Despite the failure of this study and other empirical research to support his theory, as well as shortcomings of his theory (e.g., an inability to predict outcomes), Freud’s work had the unintended effect of opening the scientific door to the study of parental influences on children.
Major Theories of Parent-Child Relationships
Currently there are five theories that guide much of the research into parent-child relationships: Evolutionary Psychology, Attachment, Social Learning, Bioecological Systems, and Human Behavioral Genetics. These theories, along with others that we will discuss, provide a foundation for understanding the research findings described throughout the book.
Evolutionary Psychology
Charles Darwin revolutionized the world and the scientific community when, in 1859, he published his theory about the evolution of humans and animals. The core
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 31
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
idea was simple: According to the concept of natural selection, not all individuals have the same chances for survival in a particular environment. Those better suited for their environment will survive longer and more often, leaving behind more off- spring than will those individuals who are less well adapted. Characteristics, then, that are a better match for the environment will be more likely to persist genetically. They are thus “selected for.” Through this process, particular traits and characteris- tics become more or less common in any given population. According to contem- porary applications of Darwinian Theory, natural selection operates on individuals (and therefore their genetic material) with the goal of having our genes survive in subsequent generations. Thus, as the biologist Richard Dawkins (1976) phrased it in his celebrated book, our genes are “selfish.”
When the evolutionary approach is applied to parenting, researchers seek to understand how patterns of child rearing have been modified and selected for—at least during the past 35,000 years when anatomically modern humans emerged and lived in hunter-gatherer communities. Given that 99% of human generations (each generation lasts roughly 25 years) have lived in hunter-gatherer societies, the aim of the evolutionary approach is to explicate how contemporary parent behavior reflects and is affected by selection processes within these societies.
Individuals have evolved to be particularly attuned to certain environmental events or stimuli in order to promote their survival. Fears of heights or snakes are good fears to have if one wants to live long. The same evolutionary theory has
led researchers to look for characteristics and behaviors in organisms that promote the survival of the young. It is easy to recognize that the cry of an infant is a powerful and aver- sive behavior designed to elicit rapid caregiver attention. But also there are more subtle stimuli that have been linked to caregiving behavior. The unique facial characteristics of human infants and other young animals that we perceive as cute (e.g., large forehead, round cheeks, small nose and chin) represent a special class of stimuli that are believed to liter- ally “turn on” caregiving behavior—whether it be in animals or humans (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970; see Illustration 2.2).
Evolutionary theorist Kevin MacDonald (1992) argued that the feeling of love for a child has been selected for over hundreds of thousands of years. That emotion has served to ensure cohesive family relationships and paternal involve- ment in child rearing, thus increasing the likelihood of child survival. Another concept of interest to contemporary evo- lutionary researchers is parental investment (Trivers, 1974). Parents, especially mothers, devote a great deal of time (at a minimum, the 9 months of pregnancy), energy, money, and thought to rearing their children. But why do some parents spend so much time with some children while other parents may be largely uninvolved? According to evolutionary theory, the answer lies in the amount of shared genetic material, the offspring’s likelihood of survival, and the
32 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Illustration 2.2 Evolutionary psychologists argue that the distinctive features of infants that make them appear cute have been selected for in order to ensure parental care and investment.
Source: Photograph by J. P. Bell.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 33
future likelihood that the child will have children (e.g., Geary, 2005). For example, evolutionary psychologists argue that it was adaptive for our ancestors with scarce resources not to care for premature or handicapped newborns who were unlikely to survive—thus providing a theoretical basis for the widespread practice of infanti- cide discussed in the previous chapter.
Differential parental investment has also been proposed as the explanation of why some parents physically abuse their children. Two researchers (Daly & Wilson, 1996) proposed that serious child abuse—when children are killed—can be explained by evolutionary theory. When they analyzed Canadian child fatality data, they discovered that the annual rate of child homicides was about 500 victims per million for fathers living with stepchildren. In contrast, the child-homicide rate for fathers and their biological children was less than 20 victims per million. Stepfathers, then, were 25 times more likely to murder their stepchildren than biological fathers were to murder their children. Although there are social interaction explanations for this effect, and other investigators have not replicated that finding (e.g., Malkin & Lamb, 1994), the results are provocative.
It is important to point out that an evolutionary view of development does not claim that any action is inevitable. Rather, current proponents of evolutionary psychology (e.g., Buss, 2005) view our heritage as providing a propensity or bias toward behaving or reacting in particular ways due to selection pressures. It is pos- sible to counteract that bias, but a person needs to be conscious of that bias and then work to compensate for it.
Attachment Theory
If asked to identify the single most important quality of the parent-child rela- tionship, most people would say “love.” Understanding how love between a parent and child affects development is the focus of Attachment Theory. This theory has its roots in Freudian ideas, evolutionary views, and empirical research into the mother-child bond in rhesus monkeys conducted by Harry Harlow (see Box 2.1). Attachment Theory addresses the establishment, maintenance, and consequences of affectionate bonds between parents and children. John Bowlby (1907–1990), a British child psychiatrist, initially formulated its central ideas. As the theory developed, it reflected Bowlby’s long-term collaboration with Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999), a Canadian psychologist.
The core premise of Attachment Theory is that the relationship between a parent and infant reflects a behavioral system that has adapted to promote survival and competent functioning of the offspring. The behavioral system has two parts: nov- elty seeking and proximity seeking. Although the development of the system occurs throughout the first year of life, it is most apparent when infants begin to crawl (typ- ically around 6 to 10 months of age). When infants feel safe in their surroundings, they will crawl around to explore and play with novel objects. After all, the way an infant grows into an independent and competent adult is through exploring, manip- ulating, and interacting with people and objects. This is novelty seeking in action.
On the other hand, infants who just set off to explore the environment without fear would not last long—they might get injured or even killed. This is where the
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
second part of the system comes in: proximity seeking. When infants are upset, dis- tressed, or fearful, they will retreat to the protective arms of a parent. The parent is then able to protect the child—one of the basic functions of parenting identified by Bradley (see Table 1.1).
In this way, parents serve as a secure base for an exploring infant. According to Attachment Theory, this base enables infants to feel comfortable exploring their environment, because they know they can retreat to the safety of a parent when they need protection (see Illustration 2.3). After regaining a sense of well-being, infants can then return to exploring their environment and developing competence in their world. Caregivers establish their role as a secure base over the first year of life by showing warmth and love to the infants, being sensitive to their cues, and by satisfying their needs and helping to regulate their emotions. In turn, infants learn to trust that the caregiver will take care of their needs. That trust develops into a secure attachment that promotes exploration of the environment, supports the development of social and cognitive competence, and establishes feelings of efficacy (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).
Ainsworth, after observing how mothers and infants interacted in the Ganda tribe in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967) and conducting a longitudinal study in Baltimore,
34 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Harry Harlow, His Monkeys, and “Mother Love”
It is sometimes difficult to test theoretical propositions on children. Due to the slow pace of human development that requires studies to last for many years, the inability to fully control the environment, and ethical considerations, resear- chers have sometimes used animals. Although animal research must also meet ethical standards and be approved by ethical review boards, there is more lati- tude given to conducting research with animals. Harry Harlow (1905–1981) was a psychologist who used mostly rhesus monkeys to investigate questions about behavior that otherwise could not be studied.
Harlow’s most important studies concerned the nature of love. The prevailing view was based on learning theory, including J. B. Watson’s views about the dan- gers of affection. Infants love their mothers because of the nourishment they receive fulfills a basic need. Harlow questioned that view and designed experi- mental studies to refute it. Using two wire-mesh “surrogate” mothers, he con- ducted a series of studies in the 1950s and early 1960s. One of the wire-mesh monkey mothers had a feeding tube attached to its chest so the infant monkey could obtain nourishment from it. The other surrogate mother had no tube but was covered with a soft, terry-cloth material. When Harlow frightened the young monkeys with a robot, they retreated to the surrogate mother who pro- vided them with comfort. The choice was unanimous. Infant monkeys sought the comfort of the terry-cloth covered monkey, not the one with the feeding tube. Based on that investigation and others, Harlow concluded it was the feel- ing of warmth rather than the nourishment that the infants sought. This, he argued, was the nature of love. A fascinating description of Harlow’s work and life can be found in a biography by Deborah Blum (2002).
BOX 2.1
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
designed a clever laboratory procedure to assess the quality of the attachment relationship (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). In this 22-minute procedure, 12-month-old infants were put through increasingly stressful situations. The eight episodes listed in Table 2.2 involve a carefully orchestrated series of departures and reunions of the parent and an unfamiliar adult in order to gauge the infant’s quality of attachment with his or her parent. The key episodes are number 5 and number 8, when the mother returns to the room after the infant has been left with the unfamiliar adult or alone.
How infants respond to the parent during these reunions is thought to reveal the essence of children’s emotional ties to their parents—that is, children’s learned behavior strategy of interact- ing with the mother. Videotapes of infants in Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” procedure are then painstakingly coded in order to classify a child into attachment types. The classification is based primarily on how infants behave when the mother leaves and returns. Other information that contributes to the coding includes how upset the infants get, how much they cry, and whether and when they show positive emotion.
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 35
Illustration 2.3 Attachment Theory is based on the importance for development of the love between a mother and a child. Here a young mother comforts her baby daughter with close contact and loving attention.
Source: Photograph by J. P. Bell.
Episode Action Comments
1 Introduction of experimenter (E) to mother (M) and child (C).
Lasts only 30 seconds.
2 C explores, M seated. M watches C.
3 Stranger (S) enters room. S silent first minute, then talks to M, then in 3rd minute to C; M leaves at end of episode.
4 C alone with S. Key question is whether C gets comfort from S.
5 M returns, S leaves. Reunion #1 of M and C; M leaves at end of episode.
6 C is alone. Episode often lasts less than 3 minutes due to C’s distress.
7 C enters. Key question is whether C gets comfort from S.
8 M returns, S leaves. Reunion #2.
Table 2.2 Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure
Note: Each episode lasts 3 minutes except for Episode 1 and those episodes where the child becomes very distressed.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
One might expect all infants to be upset when their mothers leave them and, upon their return, to eagerly approach and hug them. These children are consid- ered “secure” in their attachment to their mothers. However, depending on the sample, approximately 40% of infants respond quite differently. Some barely notice their mother’s re-entering the room or even ignore her return. These children are classified as anxious-avoidant. Another pattern of response is to be upset when the mother leaves and, upon reunion, approach her but resist being held. These children would be classified as anxious-resistant, also called ambivalent. The final type of “insecure” attachment does not follow either pattern but instead shows a mixture of responses. These children do not have an organized behavioral strategy to deal with stresses and therefore are labeled disorganized.
Attachment Theory holds that the way a child responds to the maternal absence is due to the history of parent-child interaction. Infants who received sensitive par- enting over their first year of life developed secure attachments. Sensitive parenting means that, at a minimum, the parent responds contingently, appropriately, and consistently quickly to the infant’s needs (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981). Furthermore, parents of secure children are also flexible, balanced, and integrated (Solomon & George, 2008). Picture an infant who is in pain because she is hungry. She begins to cry. If her distress signal is responded to quickly and appropriately (she gets fed), she will begin to trust that caregiver to meet her needs. Over time, if the caregiver quickly and correctly addresses the infant’s needs (such as hunger, boredom, and discomfort), the infant learns that the caregiver can be relied on. In this way, the infant feels secure in the presence of this adult.
Some mothers and fathers do not respond sensitively to their infants. It could be because the parent is depressed, angry, or stressed. Or the parent could be operat- ing under the erroneous belief that infants do not need responsive care or that such care might even be damaging (for instance, they are afraid of “spoiling” the infant). In some cases, mothers did not plan or want to have children, and they resent the demands of parenting. These parents are likely to provide inconsistent care or even ignore or reject the infant’s bids for attention and care. Parents who fail to respond sensitively are likely to have children who develop insecure attachment relations. If the parent does not attend regularly to the infant’s needs, the child will develop an anxious-avoidant relationship pattern. Such children learn that the parent cannot be expected to provide for their needs, so they do not bother going to their parents later when stressed or in need.
Other parents may love their infants, but for various reasons they have a poor sense of timing, misjudge their infants’ needs, or are inconsistent in their care. For example, a mother may misread her infant son’s fussiness and think he wants to play. Or a father may be preoccupied with his troubles and so responds inconsis- tently to his crying daughter. Consequently, the message is that the parent is an unreliable caregiver. The infant learns that “my parent is unpredictable and cannot be counted upon to help me when I am in distress.” As a result, that child will show an ambivalent—that is, anxious-resistant—pattern of behavior.
The third category of insecurely attached children—that is, disorganized—was created to describe children who could not otherwise be classified as avoidant or resistant. These infants did not show the typical strategies of avoiding their caregivers
36 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
or responding to them with ambivalence. Instead, these infants did not display any consistent pattern of response. These disorganized children are believed to be sur- vivors of abuse or some trauma and thus show peculiar and incoherent response patterns.
In the 1980s and 1990s, hundreds of studies were conducted using the Strange Situation procedure. A wealth of questions addressed such topics as the relation between maternal versus paternal attachment, the relation between child tempera- ment and attachment, whether day care causes insecure attachments, the relations between maternal caregiving and attachment classification, cross-cultural differ- ences in attachment patterns, and outcomes of secure attachment patterns in terms of social competence and school success. Some findings from these studies will be examined in subsequent chapters.
The newest frontier of Attachment Theory lies in understanding how early parent-child relationships influence a growing child’s understanding of how reli- able and trustworthy other people are. As their social world expands, children carry these views of others with them into their new relationships. These views are called internal working models (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008). As infants develop, they build an understanding of the world that contains ideas and expectations about how other people will behave toward them.
According to attachment theorists (e.g., Bowlby, 1988; Cassidy, 2008), there is something else infants are learning from interacting with caregivers—their own worth or lack of worth. If a caregiver does not provide sensitive care, then infants get the message they are unworthy of care and perhaps unlovable. The theory has been extended to capture how individuals’ internal representation of self and others influence their behavior in later childhood and adulthood (Ainsworth, 1989). Psychologists (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008) also study the influence of early attachment relations as it relates to dating relationships and functioning in married couples.
Here is a rough analogy. Suppose a friend sets you up for a blind date. You show up at the appointed time and at the right place, but your date does not. What is your first thought? Do you suspect that your date was an unreliable person (i.e., sug- gesting a distrust of others)? Or do you think that perhaps the date arrived, checked you out from a distance, and decided you were not a good match (i.e., negative view of self )? Our reactions provide a glimpse of the working models of ourselves and others that we carry around in our heads.
According to Attachment Theory, the implications of attachment classifications are profound because individuals base their interpersonal behavior on their inter- nal working models, even into adulthood. Insecurely attached individuals are expected to behave differently from securely attached ones, whether interacting with their parents or others, such as peers and teachers. In particular, investigations have linked adults’ working models with how they form romantic relationships and how they parent their own children. However, these internal working models are just cognitions, and they can be changed. If an insecurely attached individual reevaluates her thinking, perhaps with the help of a therapist she can establish new representations about herself and others. Such an individual can then shift into an “earned” secure status.
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 37
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Social Learning and Social Cognitive Theories
Children change as they grow and at least some of this change relates to what they learn as they interact with others in their world. This concept is the basis for social learning theories and their derivative, Social Cognitive Theory. These theories address how social behavior is modified through specific social experiences. Bandura (2001) was one of the theorists who developed Social Learning Theory. His early work was based on modeling, as illustrated in the postcard of the girl modeling with her mother (see Illustration 2.4). Contemporary theories have evolved from a mixture of previous theories, includ- ing psychoanalytic theory, behavioral learning theory, and cognitive theories (Cairns, 1979; Grusec, 1992).
John B. Watson (1878–1958) was a prominent and col- orful early social-learning theorist. Known as the “father of behaviorism” because he advocated focusing on actual behavior (rather than introspection), Watson also fathered the explicit link between social learning and child rearing and used ideas about conditioning from Ivan Pavlov and Edward Thorndike to formulate his views about how children develop. Watson espoused an extreme environmental and mechanistic perspective, depicting the child as little more than a small conditioning machine, fueled by learning. His well-known boast appeared in his book, Psychological Care of Infant and Child, in 1928:
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in, and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—a doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even into beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors. (p. 10)
A few years later, Watson tempered his claim but not his views when he wrote that “it is what happens to individuals after birth that makes one a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, another a diplomat, a thief, a successful business man or a far-famed scientist” (1930, p. 270). His child-rearing manual, Psychological Care of Infant and Child (1928), was intended to guide parents in rearing psychologically healthy children and to be a companion to health-related manuals from pediatri- cians such as Dr. Holt (discussed in Chapter 1).
Watson’s brand of social learning theory was based on classical conditioning. He recognized the utility of conditioning for controlling fears in children and curing such common problems as shyness. He also warned parents of the dangers of “cod- dling” (giving too much affection to) infants, because he was convinced it resulted in learned “invalidism.” Watson believed that the prudent use of classical conditioning
38 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Illustration 2.4 Postcard from the early 1900s illustrating modeling.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
represented a powerful environmental tool to allow parents to influence their children’s development (Horowitz, 1992).
Missing from Watson’s approach was operant conditioning as a learning mecha- nism. However, after its discovery by B. F. Skinner (e.g., 1938), no social learning theory could be complete without it. In fact, Skinner is considered by many to be the most influential psychologist of the 20th century. In his novel, Walden Two (1948), he described how to rear and educate children using his principles in order to create happy, creative, and productive adults. Some parents also knew of Skinner for his invention of the “air crib.” High-tech for its time, it not only controlled temperature and humidity but it also was designed for the easy cleanup of an infant’s eliminations. Several companies marketed the product, but it was never a commercial success.
Still, Skinner’s legacy lives on through his other innovations, especially his theory of operant conditioning. At the heart of this analysis is that behavior can be modi- fied by its consequences. If the consequence of a response increases the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated, we call that a reinforcement effect. In contrast, if the consequence of a response decreases future repetitions of the behavior, we call that a punishment effect. Whether operant conditioning results in a reinforcement or a punishment effect depends on the nature of the response consequence.
Response consequences can be pleasant or reinforcing, or they can be unpleasant or punishing. Skinnerian conditioning gets more complex when one considers that reinforcers and punishers can either be applied or removed (see Table 2.3). If one gives a child candy when the child performs a desired response, one is using a positive reinforcement procedure and the result will be an increase in the behavior. However, if the same candy is removed when the child does something, the behavior will be suppressed. This procedure is called negative punishment. If an aversive stimulus is applied in response to an undesired behavior, such as a spank to a toddler’s noncom- pliance, this too is a punishment procedure, but in this case the procedure is called positive punishment because the response produces, rather than removes, a stimulus. In contrast, if an unpleasant stimulus or event is removed, that removal reinforces the preceding action. This type of reinforcement is called negative reinforcement. Many people confuse the concept of negative reinforcement with that of punishment. Just keep in mind that reinforcement procedures increase or strengthen behavior whether the procedure involves positive or negative reinforcement.
Just as any procedure that increases the likelihood that behavior recurs is a reinforce- ment procedure, any procedure that decreases behavioral recurrence is punishment. So
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 39
Type of Action
Administer Withdraw
Positive Stimulus Positive reinforcement Negative punishment (or “omission training”)
Negative Stimulus Positive punishment Negative reinforcement
Table 2.3 Differentiating Punishments From Negative Reinforcements
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
presenting a positive (pleasant) stimulus (such as attention, candy, or money) is rein- forcement. Withdrawing a negative (unpleasant) stimulus (such as nagging, yelling, spanking, or whining) also functions as reinforcement. Presenting an unpleasant or aver- sive stimulus produces punishment, as does withdrawing a positive stimulus. Whether a procedure involves reinforcement or punishment is based not on whether the stimulus is pleasant or unpleasant but on the behavioral outcome: Does the likelihood of the behavior increase or decrease in the future?
Consider the common example of a child in the supermarket fussing for candy that the parent does not want the child to have. Often, the exasperated parent gives in and buys the candy. When the child stops fussing, the parent’s action has been negatively reinforced because an unpleasant stimulus (the noxious child fussing) was withdrawn. The next time the parent takes the child shopping, the parent is more likely to buy candy quickly so as to avoid the fussing altogether. In this case, the parent is being trained! Interestingly, the candy has also positively reinforced the child’s fussing, so the child is more likely to fuss again—and more vigorously— on the next shopping trip unless given the candy.
We can see, then, how Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning can be used to uncover the causes of some mysterious behavioral issues. It can be useful in explain- ing how children acquire bad habits from their parents and how parents inadver- tently reinforce behaviors they do not like, such as whining, noncompliance, and temper tantrums. According to behavior theorists, parents can make at least three basic mistakes. Perhaps most commonly, they give attention to undesired behaviors and thereby reinforce them. A child misbehaves and the parent reacts by repri- manding. The child then gets attention—which can be reinforcing even if the atten- tion takes an unpleasant form. A second problem is that parents fail to positively reinforce desired behaviors. When a child is playing nicely with a peer, parents gen- erally do not notice and so miss the opportunity to reward the behavior with posi- tive attention and compliments. The third type of error parents commonly make is to rely on punishments rather than reinforcements. Punishment introduces fear and anxiety into what should be constructive and pleasant child-parent interactions.
As with any theory, there is the danger of oversimplifying or misapplying the practice of conditioning. Although candy, allowance, and gold-star stickers can function as rewards, the most sought after parental reinforcer is attention and approval. No amount of monetary or material reward can substitute for the atten- tion that children crave. Unfortunately, these days, at least with older children, rewards for good grades often come in the form of money, iPods, or gift cards. One of the concerns with that practice is that when external rewards are given for edu- cational goals, students will not be internally motivated and will not develop a love of learning. Later when the reward is removed, children will not continue to want to learn and do well in school or college.
A related problem is that punishments are often used incorrectly. Punishment is only effective if it is used consistently (any time the misbehavior occurs), contin- gently (right after the misbehavior), and—at least following the initial instance of the misbehavior—harshly (Holden, 2002). However, most parents are reluctant to punish harshly, are likely to postpone punishment (i.e., “wait till we get home”), and are inconsistent in dispensing punishment.
40 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Gerald Patterson is a social learning theorist who recognized the power of oper- ant conditioning in parent-child relationships. For many years, he carefully analyzed the behavioral interactions of antisocial boys and their families and made several important insights into the development of conduct disorder and delinquency. At the heart of his model are coercive cycles, problematic interactions in which parent and child compete to see who can gain the upper hand. The cycle may start with a mundane event, such as a mother nicely requesting John, her 6-year-old son, to pick up the mess of toys and clothes strewn across his room. If he is like most children, he will ignore the first request. When the mother returns to inspect the room, she is not pleased. This time, she escalates her request, perhaps to a demand: “Clean up your room right now!” John may say, “I’ll do it later.” Now the mother becomes irri- tated and gives a warning that the room needs to be cleaned now “or else.” John refuses. Her strategy to gain compliance is to increase the intensity of her command. She may up the ante by yelling: “If you don’t start cleaning up your room by the time I count to three, you’ll get a spanking.” At this point, the boy may reciprocate and yell back, “If you hit me, I’ll hit you back!” By this time, the mother has inadvertently entered into a power bout (Ritchie, 1999). She may attempt to spank the child, but he will likely retaliate. Thus, both mother and child are trying to coerce the other into backing down. More often than not, the child comes out the winner. According to Patterson (1982), through these coercive processes, the boy is being positively reinforced for noncompliance, and he is negatively reinforcing his mother’s giving- in behavior. Illustration 2.5 depicts this coercive cycle.
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 41
Child yells
Mother yells
Continued escalation . . .
Child refuses to comply
Mother warns child
Child ignores
Child puts off until “later”
Mother requests that child perform
a chore
Mother repeats request
Illustration 2.5 An Example of a Coercive Cycle
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Evidently, it is a bad idea for parents to engage in coercive cycles because (a) it is unlikely the parent will “win” without engaging in abusive behavior, and (b) the cycle undermines the parent’s authority and power. Boys who frequently get into coercive cycles with their parents are on the pathway to delinquency, as will be dis- cussed in Chapter 9.
Although Patterson’s social learning investigations are insightful, Albert Bandura’s (2001) Social Learning Theory is more comprehensive. Bandura recog- nized the fundamental roles that direct learning and observational learning play in the establishment of new behavior. In his famous “Bobo doll” studies, Bandura and his colleagues demonstrated that children only need to observe an act in order to acquire it. Simply watching a video of children hitting a Bobo doll incited the observers to become more aggressive (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). What is observed may or may not be mimicked, depending on a series of cognitive compo- nents (e.g., attention, memory, imagery, and motivation). Once a behavior is estab- lished, it can then be readily maintained through reinforcement. Bandura also showed that children are more likely to imitate those models whom they perceive as powerful and nurturant, both attributes common to parents.
As Bandura’s theory has developed over the years, it has grown progressively more cognitive; he now calls it Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2001). Bandura’s theory currently emphasizes the cognitive and information-processing capacities of individuals who mediate their social behavior (e.g., attention, memory). In partic- ular, Bandura considers an individual’s feelings of self-efficacy, or beliefs about one’s ability to effect changes in one’s environment, to be a key element in under- standing human behavior (Grusec, 1992). As will be seen in the next chapter, parental self-efficacy is now widely recognized as a fundamental component of effective parenting (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989; Jones & Prinz, 2005).
Bioecological Systems Theory
Bioecological Systems Theory was created by Urie Bronfenbrenner to capture how the developing child is embedded in a series of environmental systems or con- texts that interact with one another and with the person (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). A serious problem with existing theories (such as attachment or social cognitive theories) was that they do not explicitly consider the roles that environment and context play in influencing behavior.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory expands on Kurt Lewin’s (1935) classic formula of behavior, B = f(P,E)—or a person’s behavior is a function of (or caused by) a com- bination of the person and the environment. Ecologists believe that one cannot and should not separate out the person from the environment; the two are integrally connected. This constant interaction between the two is known as transactional influence. In the case of parent-child relationships, this means that the child’s behavior or characteristics can influence both the parent and the context in which the interactions occur. In turn, the context influences the child’s subsequent behav- ior and characteristics. For example, an athletic child may persuade her parents to allow her to join a girls’ soccer team. That involvement, in turn, may result in family
42 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
trips to attend soccer tournaments, summers at soccer camp, and new friends for both the child and the parents.
The central contribution of Bronfenbrenner’s theory lies in explicating how a child’s biologically influenced characteristics (the “bio” part of the theory’s name) interacts with multiple levels of the natural environment. These levels of context are hierarchi- cally organized and nested, each within the next. The innermost environmental context is called the microsystem and refers to the immediate settings that a person encounters and the interactions and activities within those settings. So interactions at home, in the classroom, or in the mall are examples of the microsystem context. The interactions a child has in this context are often bidirectional: The child influences the surrounds, and the surrounds influence the child. For example, a friendly and attentive child is more likely to evoke positive and patient child-rearing behaviors, in contrast to a high-activity child who may receive restrictions and reprimands. These bidirectional interactions recur over time and can have a lasting effect on development.
The second level of the model is the mesosystem, which refers to the connec- tions or interrelations between microsystems. Children’s development is promoted when there are supportive links between microsystems. An example is school suc- cess. Performance at school depends, in part, on the particular classroom experi- ence the child has—that is, a microsystem. However, it also depends on what goes on in the home to prepare the child for school and help the child succeed in school—that is, a second microsystem. Thus, the links between home and school contribute to school success and represents part of the mesosystem (see Illustration 2.6).
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 43
• Cultural Beliefs and Institutions • Culture, social class, racial group
• Immediate Context • Place, time, and transient
parent-child behaviors
• Relations Across Different Contexts • Parent’s, child’s, and family’s
stable characteristics
• Social Structures in a Society • Work, neighborhood, stress,
and social support
Micro
Chronosystem
Meso
Exo
Macro
Illustration 2.6 The Bioecological Framework
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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 next level, called the exosystem, refers to contexts that do not ordinarily contain children but nevertheless affect their development. The parent’s place of employment is one such setting. That setting influences children’s development through employment policies (e.g., sick leave) as well as the work climate. A parent who has had a hard day at work will come home in a different mood than another parent who has had a positive day (Matjasko & Feldman, 2006). A parent’s group of friends or social support network is another example of an exosytem.
The final and outermost level of Bronfennbrenner’s model is the macrosystem. This level refers to the subcultural or cultural context in which microsystems, mesosystems, and exosystems are embedded. It includes the cultural values, laws, and customs of a particular society. What happens at this level affects each of the inner levels. Governmental policies about children and cultural institutions (such as the church) and general cultural beliefs about children and parenting are cap- tured at this level of analysis. Simply put, these are the social policies, customs, and practices that have an impact on the society’s children. Several examples of changes in the macrosystem were discussed in Chapter 1, including the banning of infanti- cide and the instigation of child-labor laws.
Bronfrenbrenner recognized that past experiences influence present behavior, that environments change over time, and that children change, so he included the chronosystem in his model. This system refers to how nested systems of interactions influence future behavior as well as change as the child gets older. For example, mat- urational changes that occur in puberty are linked to increased parent-child conflict, as will be discussed in a future chapter (Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn, 1991).
The Bioecological Systems Theory has been particularly influential in at least two ways. First, it has helped to focus attention on the role that context plays in the lives of children and their parents. Second, it has afforded a theoretical structure within which to integrate diverse research results, such as the influence of different types of external environments (e.g., work, social networks, and neighborhoods) on the adaptive and maladaptive functioning of families. Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides a useful framework for recognizing the different contextual influences on an individual and how those influences help to shape a child’s development. It also recognizes the role that children can play in their own development, as does the next theory.
Human Behavioral Genetics Theory
Willie Bosket was a bright and appealing child, but by the time he was 15 years old, he was also a double murderer. Social Cognitive as well as Bioecological Systems theories would explain his violent behavior by analyzing how he was reared and other environmental influences: His mother was a poor, single parent who relied on harsh, physical punishment in her efforts to socialize him; as a preteen, he spent considerable time with delinquent peers who encouraged him to be violent.
Human Behavioral Genetics Theory takes a different approach to explaining behavior. It focuses on genetic inheritance and environmental contributions to behavior or particular characteristics. The Human Behavioral Genetics Theory
44 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
explanation of Willie’s behavior would be that he was genetically predisposed to violent behavior. After all, Willie’s father, whom Willie had never met, had a long criminal history that had started before he was 8 years old. The family history of vio- lence and criminality did not end there. Willie’s grandfather and great-grandfather also had violent histories (Butterfield, 1995). The fact that four generations of Bosket men had violent criminal records suggests another influence on behavior— that of genetic inheritance.
The overarching goal of Human Behavioral Genetics Theory is to understand genetic influences on human behavior (Plomin, 1990). This orientation toward genetic determinants rather than learning and environmental influences began with the English scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911) and was pursued by the American physician Arnold Gesell (1880–1961). Trained as an educator, develop- mental psychologist, and physician, Gesell posed a nativist theory of development. He believed that children’s genetic constitution determined the natural unfold- ing of their inherited predispositions. Gesell pioneered a variety of photographic methods to carefully document children’s growth. Parents’ central role was to sup- port this unfolding by providing an environment appropriately matched to the child’s state of maturational readiness (Thelen & Adolph, 1992).
Gesell’s legacy can be readily seen in contemporary Human Behavioral Genetics Theory; however, in contrast to Gesell, who was primarily interested in charting the normative course of development, modern behavioral geneticists typically study how variations in genetic similarity are associated with variations in personal traits. Most human behavioral genetics studies involve either twin studies or adoption research. In twin studies, the similarities in children’s characteristics within a family are compared in identical, fraternal, and non-twin siblings. Adoption studies are used to compare the similarities between adopted and biological offspring with their biological and adoptive parents. Clearly, then, human behavioral geneticists are not only interested in a child’s genotype, or genetic makeup. No child is a per- fect copy of his or her parents. Though a child receives 50% of his or her genes from each parent, not even these are all exact copies. Human behavioral geneticists also recognize that the environment plays an important role in the child’s phenotype, or how the child’s geneotype is expressed, beginning with the environment when the child was in utero.
Through statistical analyses comparing individuals’ characteristics, behavioral genetics have found that for a variety of cognitive and personality variables, the her- itability between parent and child is in the range of 30% to 60%. Nongenetic fac- tors, including the environment and measurement error, must account for the rest of the differences. Consequently, behavioral geneticists are increasingly turning their attention to understanding the influence of the environment, such as the impact of child rearing and their interactions (McGuire, 2003; Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005).
So how do an individual’s genes relate to one’s environment and thus influence one’s development? Behavioral geneticists identify three basic ways that children’s genetic makeup influences their development (also referred to as gene-environment covariance and interactions) (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). First, genes could have a
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 45
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
passive role in the environment. That means a child’s parents, due to their own genetic makeup, create an environment that is independent of the influence of the child. Second, genes could play an active role in directing a child to seek out certain environments. Third, genes can have an evocative role when parents react to a child’s phenotype in a particular way unique to that child. An aggressive, impulsive child evokes different responses (such as punitive discipline) than a calm child. Those responses may, in turn, strengthen a child’s aggressive tendencies. Thus, the environment is correlated with genotype and phenotype differences.
To illustrate these interactions, consider the brilliant composer of classical music, Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791). As a child prodigy, he showed a remarkable musical talent early in life (he began playing the harpsichord by age 5 and was com- posing at age 6). He likely inherited musical genes from his father, an accomplished musician and composer. In addition to his musical genes, he grew up in a family where he was immersed in music. This is an example of a passive gene-environment interaction. Amadeus’s growing reputation as a child prodigy also elicited invita- tions from people in Salzburg, Austria, for him to play music. This type of inter- action, where a child’s genotype helps to elicit reactions from those in his environment, is evocative. The third type of interaction is active, whereby the child actively seeks out (consciously or not) a particular type of environment due to his genotype. Amadeus sought out music and other musicians as a young child and thereby influenced his own environment to further stimulate his abilities.
Within any family, a child experiences both a shared environment (among family members) and nonshared environment (unique to that child). Human behavioral geneticists reason that if child-rearing actions truly held the influence that some claim, then all of the children within a family would be affected alike and develop similar characteristics. However, siblings often differ dramatically from one another on a variety of indices (Dunn & Plomin, 1990). There appears, therefore, to be strong influences of nonshared, idiosyncratic environmental factors on children’s development (see Box 2.2).
The lack of shared child-rearing influences has led some individuals to argue that within the normal range, parenting behavior and parental characteristics have little impact on children’s development (Rowe, 1994; Scarr, 1992). In 1998, Judith Rich Harris attracted considerable media attention with her book, The Nurture Assumption. Based on her experiences with her biological and adoptive daughters and on human behavioral genetics research, she developed the thesis that parental child rearing has little influence on how children turn out. Instead, she proposed that adolescent peer influences are the key environmental agents that mold children into the people they become. Her controversial Group Socialization Theory will be addressed in Chapter 4.
Human Behavioral Genetics Theory has been useful in recognizing that devel- opment is not solely influenced by the environment. Rather, genotypes play an important role. However, the theory has its critics. Gottlieb (2003) and others have argued that the theory, which focuses on populations, is not suited to understand- ing individual development or capturing the bidirectional pathways involving genes and behavior.
46 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Narrow Theories
A number of other theories related to parent-child relationships serve to guide contemporary research. They are more limited in scope than the major theories and thus are labeled here as “narrow theories.”
Other Emotion-Based Theories
Attachment Theory was developed to account for the development and signifi- cance of parent-child love. Another theory centered on the love (or lack thereof ) between a parent and child is called Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory. Developed by Ronald Rohner (1986), the theory is based around the idea that parental love results in positive outcomes, but rejection negatively affects a child’s psychological adjustment and behavioral functioning. The four key questions this theory attempts to address are: (1) What happens to children who perceive them- selves to be loved or unloved by their parents?; (2) Do the effects of childhood rejec- tion extend into adulthood?; (3) Why are some parents warm and accepting and others are cold, neglecting, and rejecting?; and (4) What happens to a society when children in general are either accepted or rejected?
The tenets of Rohner’s theory have been tested in more than 400 studies around the world. For example, a meta-analysis (a review that involves combining and
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 47
Shared and Nonshared Environments
Two key concepts in behavioral genetics are shared and nonshared environ- ments. Shared environments refer to parts of the environment that all the children within a family experience. Examples are the family structure, the neigh- borhood, socioeconomic status, and culture. On the other hand, nonshared environments are the unique experiences of each child in the family, both within and outside the family. These include the quality of parenting the child receives as well as the friends and school experiences the child has. For example, one middle-school child may be athletic and spend a lot of time with his friends play- ing basketball at a boys’ club, while his older sister may be musically inclined and join a church choir. It is likely those interests and time spent on them will pro- mote different behavioral outcomes.
Researchers debate the relative importance of each type of environment. Research into shared and nonshared environments reveals that both shared and nonshared experiences are important for a child’s development (Rutter & Silberg 2002) despite the arguments of some behavioral geneticists that the nonshared environment is more critical. However, current evidence indicates that in early development, shared environments are more influential at least for the develop- ment of some characteristics, such as cognitive abilities (Pike, 2004).
BOX 2.2
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
comparing the results of multiple studies using a common measure of effect size) found largely universal effects of parental rejection on personality. A total of 43 studies, representing more than 7,500 children and adults from America, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, and the Caribbean, were reviewed (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). The theory correctly predicted most (about 80%) of the partici- pants’ personality scores. Rejected children are more likely to be fearful, insecure, attention-seeking, jealous, hostile, and lonely. However, a small percentage of rejected children appeared to be resilient and were functioning well. Similarly, some children from accepting families showed symptoms of rejection. Rohner accounts for that finding with the explanation that these individuals may have experienced rejection by someone other than the parent, such as a peer or romantic partner.
Another emotion-based theory, proposed by Patrick Davies and Mark Cummings (1994), focuses on the effects of children’s reactions to interparental conflict. According to the theory, children who see their parents arguing become fearful that this conflict indicates impending separation and divorce. This fear results in emotional distress. Thus, the Emotional Security Hypothesis Theory focuses on children’s perceptions of and exposure to parental conflict. If parents engage in frequent acrimonious exchanges, children will feel insecure and worry about whether their parents will get divorced—and what will happen to themselves. Alternatively, children who are exposed to little or no marital discord, or to conflict that gets resolved amicably, develop feelings of emotional well-being and develop an improved capacity for regulating their emotions.
This theory has been empirically tested in a number of experimental and natu- ralistic studies with similar results. Children exposed to adult arguments experience physiological arousal, emotional distress, and health problems (Troxel & Matthews, 2004), as well as behavioral problems (Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies, Goeke- Morey, & Cummings, 2006). However, if a conflict is resolved in a respectful, con- structive way (such as coming to an agreement or agreeing to disagree), the negative effects associated with the conflict are greatly diminished.
Control Theory
A very different type of theory was developed by Richard Bell to account for parental regulation of child behavior. Rather than focusing on attachment and emotions, Control Theory concerns the ongoing reciprocal nature of interactions (Bell, 1979; Bell & Chapman, 1986). It reflects the view that parents and children regulate each other’s behavior. According to Bell, parents have an “upper” and “lower” limit of tolerance for the intensity, frequency, and situational appropriate- ness of their children’s behavior. These limits are based on expectations and previ- ous interactions. Parents attempt to keep their children within the ideal boundary set by these upper and lower limits.
Young children often violate a parent’s upper limits. This might mean the child is too loud, too active, or engaged in unacceptable behavior. The parent reacts by reducing or redirecting the child’s excessive behavior so it falls back into the accept- able range. Alternatively, a “couch potato” child (perhaps “addicted” to television or video games) might violate a parent’s lower limits. The parent would be motivated
48 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
to try to make the child more active. Bell argued that the model holds equally well from the child’s perspective. If a parent gives a child inadequate attention (violat- ing the child’s lower limit), the child might act in such a way as to stimulate the parent to action.
This theory of mutual regulation has received support from observational stud- ies of parents and children, focusing on such child characteristics as activity level, independence, and responsiveness (Bell & Chapman, 1986). However, the model is best suited to account for parent-child relationships during times of disequilib- rium. When the parent-child dyad is in a period of stability and the individuals are meeting each other’s expectations, the model has little explanatory power (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Vygotsky’s Theory
Although the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) did not live long enough to formulate a comprehensive theory of development, his conception of the role that parents play in their children’s development has been influential (van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994). Vygotsky’s work focused on understanding how children develop cognitively, and he granted parents and other social agents a prominent role in that developmental process. He believed that social interactions provide the primary arena for development.
The central role that parents play in a child’s developmental process is captured by the concept of the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky believed that devel- opment comes about, in fact, by having children experience this zone—with the help of adults or more mature peers. Such experiences could then elicit more advanced or mature behavior from children than would surface otherwise. Imagine, for instance, the havoc that would occur if a small child was left unat- tended in a toy store. Now consider what a child’s behavior is actually like in a toy store. Parents take children to places like toy stores all the time; but, only rarely do you see children becoming unmanageable there. Vygotsky believed that the very act of taking children to places like toy stores (or the supermarket—see Box 2.3) or engaging them in more advanced tasks than they could perform on their own was one of the main “motors” of development.
The fundamental way that parents are able to elicit more mature behavior is through the process of scaffolding. Parents “erect a structure” around a desired behavior to support children’s more advanced behavior. As children grow more advanced in their linguistic, cognitive, or social interactional ability, parents no longer need to provide that structure. Eventually, children are able to navigate through a toy store on their own, without parents closely monitoring and control- ling their every move. Thus, parents occupy a central role in their children’s acqui- sition of mature behavior, according to Vygotsky’s theory.
Family Systems Theory
This theory from clinical psychology focuses on the interactive effects of differ- ent family members. Its central idea is that to fully understand behavior in the
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 49
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
50 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Scaffolding 2-Year-Olds in the Supermarket Study
Everyone has witnessed out-of-control young children in the supermarket. You have seen them running up and down the aisles, fussing for cereal, or throwing a tantrum. At the same time, other children of the same age are sitting nicely in shopping carts, perhaps assisting their mothers with the shopping task. What differentiates the two types of behavior? Lev Vygotsky, if he were alive today, would say it was the parental behavior that determined their children’s behavior. Parents who scaffold (or support) positive behavior elicit much more mature behavior from their children than other parents.
To investigate how others did this, the author (Holden, 1983) followed moth- ers (with their permission) and their 2-year-old children during two weekly trips to the market. After placing a tape recorder in a cereal box in the mother’s cart (in order to collect verbalizations), the author followed the mother-child dyad from behind, pushing a shopping cart and taking notes about the mothers’ and children’s behavior. It was immediately evident that most of the mothers were actively engaged in promoting good behavior. Mothers had a variety of tricks they used to ensure good behavior: They brought toys from home, bought bananas for the child to eat, avoided problematic aisles, or gave the child a task to perform, such as being on the lookout for a certain item. But the technique used most commonly was to engage the child in the shopping task. By doing this, mothers were structuring and supporting more mature child behavior. Through scaffolding, mothers moved children into the zone of proximal development, an area of more mature behavior than the child would be able to achieve on his or her own. Experiences in the zone were what Vygotsky believed provided a major engine for development.
BOX 2.3
family, one cannot simply focus on an individual child in isolation or only on the parent-child dyad. Rather, relationships among all members of the family must be recognized in order to understand how the behavior of individuals is supported by, encouraged, or in reaction to other family members (e.g., Carter & McGoldrick, 2005; Minuchin, 1985; Nichols & Schwartz, 2007). For example, the parent-child relationship is often disrupted in families experiencing marital discord. In such a situation, in order to understand the parent-child relationship (and perhaps why a child was experiencing behavior problems), it is necessary to recognize the conflict between the husband and wife (e.g., Buehler et al, 1997). A family-systems theorist is careful to examine all family members and their interrelationships in order to appreciate the behavioral dynamics operating within a family.
Family Systems Theory has uncovered a number of useful concepts for under- standing triadic family interactions that involve a mother, a father, and a child. For example, second-order effects refers to the observation that one parent may inter- act differently toward a child when someone else—in this case a spouse—is pre- sent. An example of this occurs in violent homes, where mothers or fathers might
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 51
alter their child-rearing behavior when in the presence of an abusive partner. For instance, in one study mothers were found to modify their disciplinary practices when in the presence of an abusive spouse. They did this in order to appease their partners and avoid inciting their anger. There was not one consistent way mothers attempted to pacify their violent husbands; some women used more strict disci- pline with their children, whereas others became more permissive (Holden & Ritchie, 1991).
The most frequently studied construct in parenting that derives from family systems theory is co-parenting. This idea refers to how mothers and fathers func- tion together in their roles as parents and, in particular, whether the parents are mutually supportive and involved. For example, if one parent takes over the tasks of an ill parent, that would be an example of mutual support and cooperation. If one parent disparages the efforts of the other parent, that would be an example of negative co-parenting. Investigators have identified a number of separate compo- nents of co-parenting, including conflict, disparagement, cooperation, and trian- gulation (McHale et al., 2002). An example of triangulation can be seen in the cartoon (see Illustration 2.7).
Illustration 2.7 Family Systems Theory considers the interrelationships between all of the family members. This cartoon illustrates the concept of triangulation.
Source: © The New Yorker Collection 2006 Danny Shanahan from cartoonbank.com. All rights reserved.
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Role Theory
A prominent theoretical approach in social psychology and sociology is Role Theory. This theory concerns the status of various family roles and the expecta- tions, behaviors, rights, and obligations that accompany these roles. Two key con- structs of role theory are role conflict and role strain. Role conflict occurs when an individual experiences conflict between the roles of two different statuses. For example, many parents experience problems negotiating their roles of parent and employee. Role strain occurs when there is tension between roles that share the same status, such as caring for a child and caring for an elderly parent.
Role theory is helpful in understanding social expectations and their repercussions. In societies characterized by strong patriarchal orientations, the traditional role for women is to marry, run the household, bear children, and then raise them. With the advent of the women’s movement, those roles have been questioned. In the contem- porary United States, the role expectations for women are considerably less rigid than they once were, thus loosening expectations for women about getting married, becom- ing mothers, staying home to rear children, or working outside the home. It is much more unusual when a man adopts a role that is nontraditional, such as stay-at-home fathers. In this case, married men choose to stay home to rear their children, while their wives go to work. See Box 2.4 for a description of the role these men have taken.
52 PART I • UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND CHILD REARING
Stay-at-Home Fathers
Whether they know it or not, a small fraction of fathers in the United States have chosen to lead countercultural lives. They are stay-at-home fathers (SAHF). According to U.S. Census Bureau information, some 143,000 men are staying home for one year or more to be the primary caregiver while their wives work at jobs outside the home (Rochlen, McKelley, Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008; Rochlen, Suizzo, McKelley, & Scaringi, 2008). This child-rearing role runs counter to the traditional view of men as being the primary breadwinners, career-oriented, and competitive. How do the men fare psychologically? A Web-based survey was designed to find out the answer. Rochlen and his colleagues collected data from 213 men who identified themselves as SAHFs. They were mostly Caucasian and cared for two children on average. According to the fathers’ self reports, the men were well adjusted and content with their marriages and their lives. Most of these 30-something-year-old male trendsetters were comfortable in their roles as caregivers and did not feel their masculinity was at risk. This was partic- ularly true for the men who perceived they had a strong social support network of partners, family, and friends. As one father put it:
I don’t think my masculinity is in question. I have two children running around. If they need a spank, I give them a spank. . . . If my daughter wants me to dress up as a bloody fairy, then I’m going to dress up as a fairy. I don’t have a problem with that. Is my masculinity in question? No! (Rochlen, Suizzo, et al., 2008, p. 8)
BOX 2.4
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
Chapter Summary
Much of the contemporary research into parent-child relationships is framed around one of five major theoretical approaches: Evolutionary, Attachment, Social Learning, Bioecological, and Human Behavioral Genetics. Each theory views the parent-child relationship from a different perspective, asks different questions, and provides different answers. Other, narrower theories are also actively shaping par- enting research, as each one focuses on a different domain, including parental acceptance, family interactions, and roles.
Although integration of the many theories is a long way off, four themes about parenting can be identified. First, parent and child behavior is influenced by a vari- ety of variables, including genetic predispositions, learning experiences, role expec- tations, and perceptions of the child. Second, the role of context in behavior has to be recognized. Parents and children behave differently in different contexts, and multiple levels of context influence the behavior. A third theme is that children play a key role in eliciting a parent’s behavior; parenting is not unilaterally determined by the mother or father. Finally, parenting is increasingly recognized as being dynamic and changeable rather than static and rigid. Parental behavior changes in response to different child behavior, different contexts, and across time.
Thought Questions
• What are the strengths of each theoretical perspective for understanding parent and child behavior?
• Design a study based on each of the major theoretical approaches. • Suppose a mother subscribed to an attachment theory of development but
her husband believed in a learning theory approach. How would their choice of parenting practices conflict?
• As a “thought experiment,” suppose you could randomly assign newborn twins to different environments. What types of environments (e.g., different cultures, family structure, child-rearing practices) would you assign to each twin and what would you predict would be the outcome?
Chapter 2 • Theoretical Perspectives on Parenting 53
Holden, G. W. (2009). Parenting : A dynamic perspective. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from umuc on 2019-06-05 13:30:54.
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
.
