Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context: Observations of “Protective Parenting” in First-Generation Latinos

Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context:Observations of ‘‘Protective Parenting’’ inFirst-Generation Latinos

MELANIEM.DOMENECHRODRIŁGUEZ,PH.D. n

MELISSAR.DONOVICK,M.S. n

SUSANL.CROWLEY,PH.D. n

To read this article in Spanish, please see this article’s Supporting Information onWiley InterScience (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117959054/home).

Current literature presents four primary parenting styles: authoritative, authori-tarian, permissive, and neglectful. These styles provide an important shortcut for aconstellation of parenting behaviors that have been characterized as consisting ofwarmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting. Empirically, only warmth and de-mandingness are typically measured. Research reporting on parenting styles in Latinosamples has been equivocal leading to questions about conceptualization and mea-surement of parenting styles in this ethnic/cultural group. This lack of consensus mayresult from the chasm between concepts (e.g., authoritarian parenting) and observableparenting behaviors (e.g., warmth) in this ethnic group. The present research aimed toexamine parenting styles and dimensions in a sample of Latino parents using the twousual dimensions (warmth, demandingness) and adding autonomy granting. Tradi-tional parenting styles categories were examined, as well as additional categorizationsthat resulted from adding autonomy granting. Fifty first-generation Latino parentsand their child (aged 4–9) participated. Parent–child interactions were coded with theParenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS). In this sample, the four traditionalparenting categories did not capture Latino families well. The combination of char-acteristics resulted in eight possible parenting styles. Our data showed the majority(61%) of Latino parents as ‘‘protective parents.’’ Further, while mothers and fatherswere similar in their parenting styles, expectations were different for male and femalechildren. The additional dimensions and implications are discussed. The importanceof considering the cultural context in understanding parenting in Latino families isemphasized, along with directions for future research.

Family Process, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2009 r FPI, Inc.

195

PROCESS

This work was supported by an NIMH K01 grant (MH066297) and a Utah State University New Faculty

Grant to Dr. Domenech Rodrıguez. The observational scale formation and primary coding was conducted byMs. Donovick as part of her thesis research. Both Dr. Domenech Rodrıguez and Ms. Donovick contribute to

this manuscript equally, and are ordered alphabetically by last name. The authors wish to acknowledge

Robert Ortega for his support in coding the data.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Melanie M. DomenechRodrıguez, at the Utah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail:[email protected]

nDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT

Keywords: Latino; Hispanic; Parenting Style; Parenting Dimensions; Parent–ChildInteractions

Fam Proc 48:195–210, 2009

Over 40 years ago, Diana Baumrind (1966) set the stage for major shifts in researchand practice in the area of parenting by presenting three primary parenting styles

that could be used as a shortcut to describe a wide-ranging constellation of parentbehaviors and childrearing goals. A couple of decades later Maccoby and Martin (1983)added a conceptual fourth style, neglectful, for which Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg,and Dornbusch (1991) provided empirical support. These parenting labelsFauthori-tarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectfulFhave permeated research, practice,and popular culture. These parenting style labels provide an important framework fora constellation of parenting behaviors and childrearing goals and have been primarilycharacterized as consisting of varied combinations of warmth, demandingness, andautonomy granting. However, although the styles are conceptually built on thesethree dimensions, only two dimensions are typically measured: warmth and de-mandingness.

An authoritarian parenting style is characterized by low responsiveness, high de-mandingness, and low levels of autonomy granting. An authoritative parenting style ischaracterized by high responsiveness, high demandingness, and autonomy granting.A permissive parent shows high levels of responsiveness and autonomy granting andlow levels of demandingness. A neglectful parent is disengaged, showing low levels ofboth responsiveness and demandingness and autonomy granting (Karavasilis, Doyle,& Markiewicz, 2003).

Generally, research supports the use of these parenting style labels in amajority culture. However, when examining the literature on Latinos’ parentingstyles the support is less robust. Research targeting the observation of these stylesin Latino samples has been equivocal leading to questions about conceptualizationand measurement of parenting style in this specific ethnic/cultural group. Onepossible explanation for this lack of consensus is that the chasm between the con-cepts (e.g., authoritarian parenting) and the observable parenting behaviors(e.g., warmth) is too great when applied to a cultural group with potentially differentchildrearing practices and goals from the mainstream. Alternatively, it is possiblethat, contrary to Baumrind’s original gold standard, many of these studies havebeen conducted using survey measures which have obscured or confused results.To our knowledge, no studies of Latinos’ parenting styles have used observationalprocedures.

The present research aimed to better understand the disparate findings in theliterature on Latinos’ parenting styles by examining Baumrind’s parenting styles(i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, neglectful) in a study using directobservations of parent–child behaviors. In addition to using an observationalmethodology, the dimension of autonomy granting as originally conceptualizedby Baumrind was added. Finally, and given early warnings of gender as an im-portant childrearing context by both Baumrind and also Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979),we examined the influence of parent and child gender on the three parentingdimensions.

FAMILY PROCESS196 /

www.FamilyProcess.org

BAUMRIND’SBUILDINGBLOCKS

Baumrind’s seminal work presented labels for parenting practices in the service ofexamining parents’ behaviors and attitudes on child behavior. A major motivationunderlying her classic work seemed to be to debunk myths surrounding the impact ofparents’ disciplinary practices and provide empirical evidence that tempered parentalcontrol was ideal in childrearing. Interestingly, in presenting her evidence, Baumrindalso set the stage for future research and made explicit suggestions for clinical ap-plications. She explicitly selected published studies for the literature review of her1966 paper in which child behaviors are directly observed, and parents’ behaviors wereeither observed or obtained through interviews (rather than surveys), thus making astatement about the importance of observational data in parenting research. Further,she cogently contextualized behavioral research that might suggest that punishmentis ineffective by noting that parental love and respect serve as powerful variables inmaking punishments effective.

In providing an affective-interactional context, Baumrind built a bridge betweenparenting styles, parenting behaviors, and existing research to build knowledge basedon animal models and extended it to humans. She also set the stage for empiricallybased intervention strategies. In her 1966 article, she presented 12 myths and care-fully debunked each one, providing data to support each of her arguments. Notablyshe argued for ‘‘mild punishment’’ coupled with specific parental feedback to the childabout the reason for the punishment and the presentation of an alternative appro-priate behavior. She also presented evidence for the importance of active correction ofchild misbehavior. Both of these recommendations can be clearly and broadly seen inparenting interventions today (e.g., Kazdin, 2005). Similarly she recommended thatparents not use parental love as a contingency for behavior, and even stated that thisaction ‘‘probably poses a greater threat to the child’s ability to make a conscious choicethan even the use of unqualified power assertion’’ (p. 904). The focus on high levels ofwarmth and maintenance of positive parent–child bonds is also a hallmark of con-temporary empirically based parenting interventions.

In her original manuscript Baumrind (1966) did not outline the three dimensions ofwarmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting, although she mentioned them allrepeatedly. Indeed, she stated ‘‘It is of interest to evaluate empirically the effects onchildren of various combinations of extreme scores on . . . [parental] ‘firm control’ and‘restricts child’s autonomy,’ rather than to assume that they form a single dimen-sion.’’ (p. 901). By 1996, Baumrind was clearly delineating ‘‘responsiveness’’ and‘‘demandingness’’ as the primary dimensions in parenting. Interestingly, empiricalinvestigations have reported finding the three dimensions, however, chose not to in-corporate autonomy granting in statistical analyses (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1991).

RELEVANCEOF PARENTING STYLESANDDIMENSIONS

Parenting styles have been useful in understanding complex behaviors and atti-tudes of caregivers and how these relate to child outcomes. Because these styles ineffect ‘‘package’’ complex information into four memorable and simple categories,they are highly useful in intervention (and clinician training) contexts. The fourparenting styles are based on variations in levels of the parenting dimensions of re-sponsiveness (warmth), demandingness (parental control), and autonomy granting,and have been found to relate to child outcomes.

DOMENECH RODRIGUEZ, DONOVICK, & CROWLEY / 197

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, June, 2009

Warmth implies being involved and interested in the child’s activities, listening tothe child, and being supportive (Broderick & Blewitt, 2003). Demandingness refers tothe amount of control a parent imposes on a child (e.g., expectations for behavior), theimplementation of standards and rules, and the degree to which a parent enforces thestandards and rules (Broderick & Blewitt, 2003). Autonomy granting is described asallowing children autonomy and individual expression within the family (Steinberg,Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbush, 1994).

The authoritative parenting style has been correlated with positive child outcomessuch as social and cognitive functioning (Baumrind, 1989, 1993), academic achieve-ment (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, &Darling, 1992), self esteem (Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000), social adjustment(Stewart et al., 1998), and social competence (Fagan, 2000). The authoritative par-enting style is also correlated with low rates of child psychopathology (Reiss et al.,1995), while authoritarian and permissive parenting styles have been shown to beassociated with increased rates of child psychopathology (Shelton, Frick, & Wootton,1996).

Although there is a substantial body of literature addressing parenting styles, thereare significant limitations when attempting to understand parenting in Latino fami-lies. First, the vast majority of studies base their findings on parenting styles that wereconceptualized using majority White, middle class families’ values, cultural norms,and parental expectancies. Inferences made regarding child outcomes are based onparenting styles which may or may not apply to Latino families. The strongest indi-cation of a misalignment between the traditional parenting styles and Latino par-enting comes from the equivocal findings in the literature regarding the predominantstyle for Latino parents as well as the ability of parenting style to predict child out-comes. These equivocal findings coupled with historical (Baumrind, 1966, 1996;Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and more recent (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002) calls for a focuson the contexts in which parenting occur, suggest that attempts to further elucidateLatinos’ parenting styles is warranted.

PARENTING STYLES IN LATINO FAMILIES

The available literature concerning Latino parenting styles is sparse and inconsistent.Some researches have described Latinos as permissive (Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey,1994) and others as authoritarian (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Hammer & Turner,1990). Vega (1990) found that parent and child interactions were characterized bywarmth and nurturing. Controversy that emerges in the existing literature regardingparenting styles and child outcomes among Latino families highlights several themes.Some researchers have concluded that an authoritative parenting style is predictive ofoverall positive child outcomes in Latino families (Carlson et al., 2000; Dornbush et al.,1987; Radziszewka et al., 1996; Steinberg, Dornbush et al., 1992; Steinberg, Lambornet al., 1992) In contrast, other researchers contend that authoritative parenting predictspositive child outcomes in White children only, and the same association is not evident inLatino families (Lindahl & Malik, 1999; Park & Bauer, 2002).

As an alternative to the predominant categorical conceptualization of parentingstyles, researchers have suggested the use of dimensions instead. Barber (1997) andDarling and Steinberg (1993) have suggested the separate parenting dimensions ofwarmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting are better indicators of parenting

FAMILY PROCESS198 /


characteristics than parenting styles. Stewart and Bond (2002) theorize that parent-ing dimensions are universal and thus are better indicators of parenting behaviorsespecially in ethnic cultural groups where the culture-specific meaning of the behaviormay differ. It is important to note, however, that others (e.g., Stewart & Bond, 2002)assert that parenting styles are optimally useful in research and practice because theyaccurately describe naturally occurring clusters of parenting behaviors. Examiningparenting dimensions as discrete entities has the potential of creating sets of par-enting characteristics that are not reflective of what is real (Darling & Steinberg,1993). In addition, parenting styles are thought to be cohesive and fairly consistentacross time and situations (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Maccoby & Martin, 1993).

STUDY PURPOSE

This paper presents findings on an examination of parenting behaviors that areconceptualized across parenting dimensions and parenting styles using videotapedobservations. The observational scale developed to measure dimensions and styles ispresented. The paper investigates the applicability of existing parenting categories(i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, neglectful) to first-generation Latino/amothers and fathers of young children. New potential categories of parenting stylesare presented (see Table 1). The categorization of Latino parents into these eight stylecategories is presented and differences across parent gender and child gender areexamined. The investigation occurs in the context of direct parent–child observations.

METHODS

Participants

Spanish speaking Latino families with a child between 4 and 9 years of age wereincluded in the study. At least one parent was a first-generation immigrant. A total of50 families were recruited from a rural western area. One family did not complete thestudy resulting in 46 fathers and 49 mothers participating (M age¼ 33.9, SD¼ 5.5).The majority of families were two-parent (88%), of Mexican origin (81%; 17% reportedother Latino origins; 2% did not report origin), and reported a yearly incomeo$35,000 (83.2%; 15.8% below $15,000, 46.3% $15,000–$25,000, 7.4% above $35,000,9.5% did not report income). Twenty male (40%) and 30 female (60%) children par-ticipated and the average age was 6.64 years (SD¼ 1.44). There were one to seven

TABLE 1

Parenting Styles

Warmth Demandingness Autonomy granting

Authoritative High High HighAuthoritarian Low High LowPermissive High Low HighNeglectful Low Low LowProtective High High LowCold Low High HighAffiliative High Low LowNeglectful II Low Low High



children in the home (M¼ 3.1, SD¼ 1.3). Sample demographic characteristics arepresented in Table 2.

Level of acculturation was assessed using Cuellar, Arnold, and Maldonado’s (1995)Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II. The majority of participantswere classified as traditional/separate (78.9%, n¼ 75), with 17.9% (n¼ 17) identified asbicultural, and 1.1% (n¼ 1 each) classified as each assimilated and marginalized (datawas missing for one participant). These orientations can be easily understood in a2 � 2 grid where Mexican orientation and Anglo orientation are juxtaposed in highand low categories. Traditional participants are high in Mexican orientation and lowin Anglo orientation. The inverse is true for those who are assimilated. Biculturalindividuals score highly in both Mexican and Anglo orientation and marginalizedpersons score low on both dimensions.

The sample was recruited through local churches, announcements at schools andcommunity parent support groups, flyers placed throughout the community, personalface-to-face recruitment by research assistants, and word of mouth by participants.Media outreach was also utilized, including a radio advertisement on a local stationduring Spanish-language programming and a web posting. Research on the presentsample showed that word-of-mouth was a critical recruitment strategy to obtain aprevention sample (Domenech Rodrıguez, Rodrıguez, & Davis, 2006).

Procedures

Participants in the current study were enrolled in a larger study aimed at culturallyadapting a parenting intervention for Spanish speaking families. Potential partici-pants made initial contact with the researcher via telephone. Study inclusion criteriaincluded participants that were Spanish speaking and had a child between the ages of4 and 9. Participants that met inclusion criteria were scheduled for appointments at

TABLE 2

Demographic Information on Child and Parent Participants

Characteristics of child participants n %

Age of Children:4 years 3 65 years 11 226 years 8 167 years 11 228 years 13 269 years 4 8

Family constellationBiological parents (intact family) 44 88Step parent and biological parent 1 4Single parent: mother only 3 6Single parent: father only 1 2

Parent educationHigh school education or less 80 83Some college 7 7College graduate 6 6

Completed education in country of origin 93 97Completed education in USA 3 3

FAMILY PROCESS200 /


the convenience of the family. If families had more than one child in the age range,they were asked to identify the child that they struggled with most. Data collectiontook place in one visit lasting about 21

2 hours at a university psychology services clinic.Childcare and transportation were provided for families if needed.

Upon arrival, participants were welcomed and provided a brief introduction to thefacility. Parents completed informed consents and were allowed time to ask questions.Special emphasis was made to ensure participants that all information provided byparticipants would be kept confidential including their legal status. Once informedconsent was obtained, parents completed the study questionnaires. Two researchassistants were present to assist the family and answer any questions.

Observational data were collected in a separate room where there were a television andvideo recorder present as well as three video cameras placed throughout the room. Fourinteraction tasks were completed and all were videotaped. First, both parents (one parentin a single parent family) participated in a 5-minute cooperation task with their child.After the cooperative task, one parent (determined randomly) was asked to return to theresearch laboratory to finish completing study questionnaires. The remaining parent andthe child participated in two 5-minute problem-solving tasks, one child-selected and oneparent-selected. Problem-solving tasks were selected based on a list of common events thatlead to parent–child conflict (e.g., child interrupts parents when they want time alone);once the most problematic event was selected, as self-reported by parent or child, the dyadwas asked to discuss the problem and attempt to find a solution. Finally, the parent–childdyad engaged in an 8-minute long skills-building task. This task included a packet ofacademic English-language worksheets that included reading, math, and grammar thatwas one grade level above the child’s grade. Thus, the child was challenged and requiredthe assistance of the parent. At the conclusion of the skills-building task a short break wastaken with snacks and refreshments provided. Following the break, the same procedureswere completed with the other parent present if a two-parent family. When the secondsegment of the study was completed, a debriefing with parents took place. Two parentfamilies were paid $50 and single parents were paid $25 for participation. In all cases, asmall gift was given to the participating child.

Materials

Paper and pencil measures included a demographic information sheet and the ac-culturation measure.

Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS)

The Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS) is a standardized codingscheme used to quantify parent behaviors demonstrated in parent–child interactions.The coding scheme was developed specifically for use in the present study based onconceptualizations of authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful par-enting styles (Lamborn et al., 1991) as well as the parenting dimensions of warmth,demandingness, and autonomy granting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

Scale Development

Development of the P-SOS coding scheme took place in three phases. First, theconceptual and empirical literature on parenting styles and the three parenting di-mensions was reviewed. As part of this process, existing measures used to assess the



constructs of interest were identified including measures such as The AuthoritativeParenting index (Jackson, Henricksen, & Vangie, 1998), and the HOME inventory(Bradley & Caldwell, 1984) among others (e.g., Hasan & Power, 2002; Park & Bauer,2002; Stewart & Bond, 2002). The initial item pool contained items taken or adaptedfrom existing measures along with some created by the research team. The pilotmeasure contained 20 items assessing parental warmth, 18 items assessing demand-ingness, and 20 items assessing autonomy granting.

The second phase of development included getting feedback on the pilot measurefrom expert raters in the field of parenting. To identify experts, an e-mail was sent totwo American Psychological Association (APA) listservsFDivision 45 (Ethnic Mi-norities) and a broad early career network for APA membersFasking for participants.This resulted in seven participants. Known experts from the Oregon Social LearningCenter were contacted and asked to participate resulting in two more expert raters.Finally we asked local experts, including doctoral students and faculty with special-ization in parenting research and/or clinical practice. This last effort resulted in threeexpert participants. Overall, 12 experts responded with interest and 10 providedfeedback. The expert rater sample reported 10.89 mean number of years involved inparenting research (range 3–30). Expert raters were sent the pilot coding form withinstruction to rate each item by how well (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, stronglyagree) they judged the item to tap the construct being assessed (warmth, demand-ingness, autonomy granting). In addition, the expert raters were asked to judgeoverall how well each construct was assessed (very poorly to very well) and were askedfor any additional comments or suggestions. Items rated as ‘‘agree’’ or ‘‘stronglyagree’’ by 80% or more of the expert raters were retained.

Expert raters had the highest degree of agreement on item suitability for thewarmth scale. When the 80% agreement rule was applied, 18 of the 20 items wereselected for inclusion into the final observational scale. Because of high items overlap,one item ‘‘Parent is responsive to child’s feelings or needs’’ was dropped resulting in17 items assessing warmth. For the autonomy granting scale 12 items were eliminatedbased on low agreement (o80%) from the expert raters leaving eight items on the finalscale. Demandingness proved to be the most problematic scale. Only two items wereselected by at least 80% of the raters as measuring the construct: ‘‘Parent is strict,’’and ‘‘Parent has high expectations of child’s behavior.’’ A review of suggestions fromthe expert raters indicated that the scale seemed to be tapping two separate dimen-sions of demandingness, ‘‘high expectations/supportive’’ and ‘‘high expectations/nonsupportive or coercive.’’ As a result, almost all items were retained and dividedinto two scales labeled supportive demandingness (9 items) and nonsupportive de-mandingness (8 items). One item was eliminated because some reviewers noted that itwas more in line with the construct of warmth. In line with the conceptualizations ofauthoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglectful parenting in the literature,the ‘‘high expectations/supportive scale’’ was used as a measure of demandingness.The items of the P-SOS are presented in Table 3.

The third phase of instrument development included training coders to use themeasure and assessing the ability of separate coders to reliably rate each item/di-mension. Coders were trained starting with a review of the conceptualized parentingconstructs in the measure through discussion and exercise during several trainingsessions. Next, the coders viewed and coded videotapes (not used in the study) until anacceptable level of reliability (.70 or above) was reached between the two coders.

FAMILY PROCESS202 /


Scoring

Two coders coded all behavioral observation tapes. The coders were a Latinagraduate student and a Latino undergraduate research assistant, both in psychology.Following the coding of 15% of study tapes, the intraclass correlations between coders

TABLE 3

Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS)

Warmth1. Parent makes the child feel better when something is wrong2. Parent listens when child has something to say3. Parent shows interest in child4. Parent praises child5. Parent and child have warm moments together6. Parent uses terms of endearment with their child7. Parent’s voice conveys positive feeling when speaking of the child or to the child8. Parent is responsive to the child during session9. Parent gives comfort and understanding when child is upset

10. Parent physically expresses affection (e.g., hugging, kissing, holding)11. Parent encourages the child to talk about the child’s troubles12. Parent is easy going and is relaxed with the child13. Parent shows patience with the child14. Parent explodes in anger towards child (RS)15. Parent expresses disagreement with child in harsh/rough manner (RS)16. Parent yells or shouts when child misbehaves (RS)17. Parent shows with actions that he/she loves the childAutonomy Granting1. Parent encourages the child to look at both sides of the issue2. Parent asks child’s opinion about decisions that will affect the child3. Parent listens to the child’s point of view even when parent disagrees with the child4. Parent helps child understand impact of their behavior by encouraging talking about the

consequences5. Parent takes into account child’s preferences when making family plans6. Parent allows child to give input into family rules7. Parent encourages child to freely express himself/herself even when disagreeing with parents8. Parent takes child’s desires into account before asking the child to do something

Demandingness: Supportive1. Parent clearly states rules to be followed2. Parent removes privileges as punishment for misbehavior3. Parent sets and enforces rules4. Parent provides instructions to the child for appropriate behavior5. Parent gives clear commands to the child in session6. Parent monitors (is attentive) to child’s behavior in session7. Parent seems in good control of child in session8. Parent does not allow or tolerate behavior that is immature or problematic9. Parent has high expectations of child’s behavior

Demandingness: Nonsupportive1. Parent seems to care about having their child obey them2. Parent seems to control their child’s choice of what they are like3. Parent seems control their child’s choice of what they wear (clothes)4. Parent is overly strict5. Parent is controlling of the child6. Parent expresses withdrawal of love if child does not live up to parent’s expectation7. Parent is overly rigid regarding the following of rules8. Parent has the attitude that all rules are nonnegotiable



ranged from .74 to .87. In order to safeguard against coder drift reliability was as-sessed at random. Videotapes of the two problem-solving tasks and the skill-buildingtask were coded on each dimension. The initial cooperative task included both parentsresulting in a different parenting context. To assess each parent–child dyad sepa-rately, the cooperative task was not used in scoring parenting behaviors. For eachtaped interaction, coders rated the parent’s behavior on a scale of 1 (very untrue) to 5(very true) with a midpoint of 3 (unclear) for each item of the P-SOS. A mean itemscore was calculated for each parent (if both participated) on each dimension (warmth,autonomy granting, demandingness-supportive) across tasks. For the purposes ofcategorizing parenting into categories (e.g., authoritative, authoritarian), a meanscore of 3.01 was considered to be ‘‘high’’ with scores of 3.0 and below consider ‘‘low.’’

RESULTS

Parenting Dimensions

Parenting dimensions among Spanish speaking Latino parents were examined bycalculating descriptive statistics of individual parenting dimensions (i.e. warmth,demandingness, and autonomy granting). Latino parents scored high on warmth(M¼ 3.83, SD¼ .32, range 2.69–4.53), high on demandingness (M¼ 3.66, SD¼ .43,range 2.22–4.63), and medium to low on the autonomy granting dimension (M¼ 2.65,SD¼ .92, range 1.0–4.21). Thus, parenting dimensions were observable in parent–child interactions of Spanish speaking Latino parents. The three scales showed low tomoderate correlations with autonomy granting and demandingness having a negli-gible relationship (r¼ .028), while demandingness and autonomy granting both had amoderate relationship with warmth (r¼ .30 and .31, respectively, po.01). Internalconsistency reliability data was calculated across all four tasks (including the familyfun task) and was adequate to good. Cronbach’s as for the warmth, autonomygranting, and demandingness scales were .79, .91, and .70, respectively. Although notused in analyses for the present manuscript, the nonsupportive demandingness scalealso showed good reliability (a¼ .84) and our sample showed relatively low levels ofnonsupportive demandingness (M¼ 2.2, SD¼ .53, range 1.00–3.63).

Parenting Styles

Consistent with the theoretical model of Baumrind (1991) and the work carried outby Steinberg, Dornbush et al. (1992) and Steinberg, Lamborn et al. (1992), authori-tative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting styles were created. Theuse of high and low scores across these dimensions resulted in eight possible parentingcategories, the ones set forth in the literature and those parents who scored high onwarmth, high on demandingness, and low on autonomy granting which was labeled‘‘protective’’ and parents who scored high on warmth, low on demandingness, and lowon autonomy granting which was labeled ‘‘affiliative.’’ There were three categorieswith no parents in them: authoritarian, cold, and neglectful II (see Table 1).

The majority (61%) of parents were categorized as protective, followed by 31%classified as authoritative (see Table 4). The four traditional parenting categories onlyaccounted for approximately one-third of the Latino families, suggesting that tradi-tional parenting categories do not capture Latinos’ parenting styles well. Notably,however, full application of the original theoretical model (i.e., including autonomygranting) captured the parenting behaviors observed.

FAMILY PROCESS204 /


Differences in Parenting Dimensions by Parent and Child Gender

The mean scores on the parenting dimensions of warmth, autonomy granting, anddemandingness were calculated and are presented in Table 5. Parents were generallyhigh on warmth and demandingness, and lower on autonomy granting. When themeans for each dimension were compared for mothers and fathers, the results indicatethat parents display relatively similar levels on each dimension (no statistically sig-nificant difference at po.05). Comparing mean scores for male and female childrenindicated that parents were lower on autonomy granting for girls as compared withboys (t¼ 3.36, df¼ 93, p¼ .001) and higher on demandingness with their daughters ascompared with their sons (t¼ � 2.57, df¼ 93, p¼ .012). The differences in parentingbased on child gender raises the question, is there an interaction effect between theparent’s gender and the child’s gender in parenting? Three 2 � 2 ANOVAs were cal-culated with parent gender and child gender as the independent factors and the threeparenting dimensions as the dependent variables. None of the parent � child genderinteractions were statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

Parenting styles research has been marked by two major disconnects: (1) the con-ceptual importance of three parenting dimensions (i.e., warmth, demandingness,autonomy granting) vis-a-vis the empirical exclusion of autonomy granting, and (2)the predominant use of self-report scales to measure the dimensions in light of Ba-umrind’s (1966) explicit statement regarding the importance of observational re-search. Some parenting researchers (e.g., DeGarmo & Forgatch, 2005) have reliedheavily on observational methods and decades of research have supported the im-portance of including observational measures to best understand parent–child inter-actions and outcomes. Indeed, behavioral observation methods have been used

TABLE 4

Parenting Styles among Latino Parents (N¼95)

N % Warmth Demandingness Autonomy granting

Authoritative 29 31 High High HighAuthoritarian 0 0 Low High LowPermissive 1 1 High Low HighNeglectful 1 1 Low Low LowProtective 58 61 High High LowAffiliative 6 6 High Low Low

TABLE 5

Means of Parenting Dimensions for Total Samples, by Parent Gender, and by Child Gender

Mom(n¼49)

Dad(n¼46)

Boy(n¼38)

Girl(n¼57)

Total(n¼95)

Warmth 3.85 (.31) 3.82 (.33) 3.79 (.29) 3.86 (.34) 3.83 (.32)Autonomy Granting 2.56 (.87) 2.59 (.99) 2.95 (.89) n 2.33 (.87) n 2.58 (.92)Demandingness 3.73 (.40) 3.60 (.45) 3.53 (.44) n 3.75 (.40) n 3.66 (.43)

nStatistically significant at po.05.



successfully in multicultural (e.g., Domenech Rodrıguez et al., 2006) and cross-cultural (e.g., Tam & Lam, 2003) samples. In the context of understanding parentingstyles and maximizing their utility for research and intervention purposes, it is criticalto consider their applicability across ethnic/cultural groups (e.g., Kotchick & Fore-hand, 2002). The disparate findings in the literature regarding Latinos’ parentingstyles called into question the applicability of the parenting styles rubric to Latinosamples. Further, questions could also be raised about the applicability of mainstreamparenting interventions to this group since they are based on these concepts. Thepresent study suggests that the omission of autonomy granting as an observed andmeasured dimension may offer some explanation for the inconsistent findings.

A major contribution of the present study is the development of the Parenting StyleObservation Rating Scale. The P-SOS scale is a compilation of published self-reportscales with added items and will be helpful to parenting styles researchers interestedin using an observational method to examine parenting styles. An examination of thescale items shows a fair amount of variability regarding how these are measured and,as such, may also explain the differences in findings across studies. The P-SOS is arelatively comprehensive scale that shows promise of utility through its ease of ap-plication and promising preliminary psychometric characteristics. Along with thepotential to further parenting style research, the scale can also used be used by cli-nicians seeking to intervene with Latino families. From an intervention perspective,the P-SOS can assist clinicians to gain a firmer grasp on the key characteristics onwhich families may differ. Further, the measure can provide specific data on parentingbehaviors that can be targeted and tracked throughout an intervention.

The present study has limitations in scope and generalizability. Further research isneeded to better understand the concurrent and predictive validity of P-SOS for La-tinos and its applicability to other ethnic/cultural groups. The present sample is rel-atively small, entirely Latino, rural, predominantly Mexican-origin (88%), and lowincome. Further research with varied Latino samples, such as nonimmigrants, andLatinos with varied levels of acculturation, educational attainment, and economicstatus would shed light on the generalizability of these findings to other Latinos.Further work with other Latino samples is particularly relevant given that researchshows a relationship between Latino parents’ practices and children’s outcomes in thecontext of culturally relevant experiences (e.g., in identity development; Schwartz,Mason, Pantin, & Szapocznik, 2008), and diverse experiences across immigrant andnonimmigrant samples (e.g., Parra-Cardona, Cordova, Holtrop, Villarruel, & Wieling,2008).

Another area for extending the present research is related to developmental con-text. The children in this sample are between 4 and 9 years of age, which may bestrongly related to the relatively low levels of autonomy granting in the sample; this isnot necessarily due to developmentally inappropriate tasks, but with parental ex-pectations of what constitute appropriate contributions from children in parent–childinteractions at a particular age. However, recent survey research by Ingoldsby, Sch-vaneveldt, Supple, and Bush (2003) with two international samples of Latino ado-lescents shows low level of autonomy granting in their sample as well. Of particularinterest is their finding that autonomy granting, among other parenting variables,predicted a lower achievement orientation. In a U.S.-based qualitative study, Gui-lamo-Ramos et al. (2007) with Latino immigrant mothers and their adolescents, theauthors reported that mothers stated the importance of continued or even increasing

FAMILY PROCESS206 /


control and monitoring during adolescence. Thus, the concept of autonomy and theparental practices associated with autonomy granting could benefit from furtherstudy within Latino samples.

The fact that the scale is built on a foundation of well established measures suggeststhat there is a good likelihood that the P-SOS is applicable for use with WhiteAmericans, at a minimum, and possibly a broader socioeconomic group than the lowincome group represented in the current sample. However, there is ample documen-tation for proceeding with care in using scales developed for one cultural group withanother (e.g., Steele, Nesbitt-Daly, Daniel, & Forehand, 2005). Finally, a critical ex-amination of the subscales’ reliabilities suggests that the demandingness scale couldbe improved to achieve better reliability, with more items that more broadly measurethe construct. The creation of the subscale presented challenges from its inceptionstemming from the broad conceptualization of demandingness in the literature aspotentially positive or negative and representing a wide range of behaviors.

A particular strength of the present findings is their potential for broadly informingresearch and practice. Domenech-Rodrıguez and Wieling (2004) advocate for‘‘decentering’’ interventions; in order words they explicitly encouraged using inter-vention research with ethnic minority samples to inform research and interventionswith ethnic majority samples. That the present research was carried out with a Latinosample is a function of a need created by research findings and the research agenda ofthe authors. Prior research with a culturally diverse sample (Lamborn et al., 1991)suggests that there is empirical support for examining parenting using three dimen-sions. This paper further supports the incorporation of autonomy granting to mea-surement of parenting styles for other ethnic groups.

Parental differences in autonomy granting and demandingness across male andfemale children have implications for both research and practice. In the researchdomain, it may be relevant to pursue further investigation of these parent expecta-tions in both a developmental and a cultural context. For example, it may be thatLatino parents expect their girls to mature earlier than boys, so they may have moreexpectations for young girls than for boys of the same age. It is very possible that asculturally informed gender roles are activated across the lifespan, parents shift theirdemandingness for boys and girls (e.g., by expecting a boy to obtain a job outside of thehome at an early age). Similarly, higher autonomy granting in boys may be tied toexpectations that boys will be heads of household and, as such, must practice a skill setthat involves active participation in household rules and activities (e.g., Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007). The importance of gender in differential parenting behaviors isstrongly documented across developmental stages (e.g., Joussemet et al., 2008; McKeeet al., 2007). The inclusion of fathers in the present study was a strength, and allowedfor the examination of parental style differences across fathers and mothers. Thesimilarity in degree of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting across fathersand mothers in their interactions with their child is of great interest. It suggests thatinterventions targeted at parents can be equally applicable for fathers and mothersand may need to directly address parents’ differential expectations for male andfemale children.

Existing research has documented that parenting is a central task in the lives ofLatino parents (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008). Supporting Latino parents in havingsuccess as they navigate parentingFan already tremendous taskFin a contextof adversity (see Parra-Cardona et al., 2008) is of critical importance to service



providers. Family therapists also have a tremendous task in supporting Latino fam-ilies given the dearth of information available to support the tailoring of family in-terventions for cultural context. There is a need for further publication of clinical andresearch findings with Latino families. In addition to the replication (e.g., other ethnicgroups) and extension (e.g., prediction to child outcomes) of these findings, it would beof interest to conduct more complex examinations of parenting styles and how theyrelate to broader cultural socialization, including cultural values. Future researchmay also explore the distinction between supportive and nonsupportive demanding-ness. The present findings suggest that these may be ends of one ‘‘demandingness’’continuum; however, they could also be conceptualized separately into ‘‘appropriateexpectations’’ and ‘‘harsh parenting’’ constructs. Finally, that parental expressions ofwarmth were equal across genders, but differed for boys and girls on demandingnessand autonomy granting, has implications for both future basic research and inter-vention development.

REFERENCES

Barber, B. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation andautonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5–11.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Devel-opment, 37, 887–907.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development todayand tomorrow (pp. 349–378). San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks, R. Lerner, &A.C. Peterson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 758–772). New York: Garland.

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average respectable environment is not good enough: A response toScarr. Child Development, 64, 1299–1317.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405–414.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, B.M. (1984). The HOME inventory and family demographics.

Developmental Psychology, 20, 315–320.Broderick, P.C., & Blewitt, P. (2003). The life span: Human development for helping profes-

sionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.Carlson, C., Uppal, S., & Prosser, E.C. (2000). Ethnic differences in processes contributing to

the self-esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 44–67.Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican

Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sci-ences, 17, 275–304.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 113, 487–496.

DeGarmo, D.S., & Forgatch, M.S. (2005). Early development of delinquency within divorcedfamilies: Evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science, 8,229–239.

Domenech Rodrıguez, M., Rodrıguez, J., & Davis, M.R. (2006). Recruitment of first generationLatinos in a rural community: The essential nature of personal contact. Family Process, 45,87–100.

Domenech Rodrıguez, M., & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing culturally appropriate evidencebased treatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E.Wieling (Eds.), Voices of color: First person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 313–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

FAMILY PROCESS208 /


Dornbush, S.M., Ritter, L.P., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, F.D., & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The

relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–

1257.Fagan, J. (2000). African American and Puerto Rican American parenting styles, parental in-

volvement, and Head Start children’s social competence. Mcrill – Palmer Quarterly, 46, 592–

612.Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N. (2007).

Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social Work, 52, 17–30.Hammer, T.J., & Turner, P.H. (1990). Parenting in contemporary society. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.Hasan, N., & Power, T.G. (2002). Optimism and pessimism in children: A study of parenting

correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 185–191.Ingoldsby, B., Schvaneveldt, P., Supple, A., & Bush, K. (2003). The relationship between par-

enting behaviors and adolescent achievement and self-efficacy in Chile and Ecuador. Mar-

riage & Family Review, 35, 139–159.Jackson, C., Henricksen, L., & Vangie, A.F. (1998). The Authoritative Parenting Index: Pre-

dicting health risk behaviors among children and adolescents. Health Education & Behavior,

25, 319–337.Joussemet, M., Vitaro, F., Barker, E.D., Cote, S., Nagin, D.S., Zoccolillo, M., et al. (2008).

Controlling parenting and physical aggression during elementary school. Child Development,

79, 411–425.Julian, T.W., McKenny, P.C., & Mckelvey, M.W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting:

Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family

Relations Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 30–37.Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A.B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and

attachment to mothers in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Be-

havioral Development, 27, 153–175.Kazdin, A.E. (2005). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and

antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press.Kotchick, B.A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the

contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11,

255–269.Lamborn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Patterns of competence

and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, neglectful

families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1076.Lindahl, K.M., & Malik, N.M. (1999). Marital conflict, family processes, and boys’ externalizing

behavior in Hispanic American and European American families. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 28, 12–24.Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization within the context of the family: Parent–

child interaction. In P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology;

Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (4th ed, pp. 1–101). New York:

Wiley.McKee, L., Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A.L., Forehand, R., Massari, C., et al. (2007). Harsh

discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal

of Family Violence, 22, 187–196.Park, H.S., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and aca-

demic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International, 23, 386–305.Parra-Cardona, J.R., Cordova, Jr., D., Holtrop, K., Villarruel, F.A., & Wieling, E. (2008). Shared

ancestry, evolving stories: Similar and contrasting life experiences described by foreign-born

and U.S. born Latino parents. Family Process, 47, 157–172.



Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J.L., Dent, C.W., & Play, B.R. (1996). Parenting style and ado-lescent supressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SESdifferences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289–305.

Reiss, D., Hetherington, E.M., Polmin, R., Howe, G.W., Simmens, S.J., & Henderson, S.J.(1995). Genetic questions for environmental studies: Differential parenting and psychopa-thology in adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 925–936.

Schwartz, S.J., Mason, C.A., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2008). Effects of family functioningand identity confusion on substance use and sexual behavior in Hispanic immigrant earlyadolescents. Identity, 8, 104–124.

Shelton, K.K., Frick, P.J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families ofelementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–329.

Steele, R.C., Nesbitt-Daly, J.S., Daniel, R.S., & Forehand, R. (2005). Factor structure of theParenting Scale in a low-income African American sample. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 14, 535–549.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S.M., & Brown, B.B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescentachievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Darling, N., Mounts, N.S., & Dournbush, S.M. (1994). Overtimechanges in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, D.S., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parentingpractices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and en-couragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.

Stewart, S.M., & Bond, M.H. (2002). A critical look at parenting research from the mainstream:Problems uncovered while adapting Western research to non-Western cultures. BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 379–392.

Stewart, S.M., Bond, M.H., McBride-Chang, C., Fielding, R., Deeds, O., & Westrick, J. (1998).Parent and adolescent contributors to teenage misconduct in western and Asian high schoolstudents in Hong Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 847–869.

Tam, V.C.W., & Lam, R.S.Y. (2003). A cultural exploration based on structured observationmethods in Hong Kong. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 45–61.

Vega, W.A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 52, 1015–1024.

FAMILY PROCESS210 /


Documents

Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context: Observations of “Protective Parenting” in First-Generation Latinos