Parents vary dramatically on the extent to which they are overprotective or responsive to the needs and concerned of their children. These parental practices can significantly affect the temperament, relationships, personality, motivation, and progress of their children, and these effects can persist throughout life.
For example, compared to individuals whose parents were inconsistent--occasionally supportive and warm, but sometimes neglectful, critical, and unfair-individuals whose parents were almost always supportive, warm, and responsive to their needs and concerns are less sensitive to rejection. They are also more inclined to perceive themselves as likeable and competent (see Wearden, Peters, Berry, Barrowclough, & Liversidge, 2008).
Baumrind (1978) distinguished four of the key styles of parenting, especially applicable to young children: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful (see also Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Authoritative parenting, as characterized by Baumrind (1978), are often demanding, manifesting elevated expectations and standards for their children and encouraging compliance with their rules and directives. Nevertheless, they encourage discussion about these rules as well as independence, autonomy and freedom, inviting children to think about their own lives and behavior. As a consequence, they punishments are measured, consistent, and justified explicitly, rather than unpredictable, erratic, and unfounded.
The parents also exhibit a warmth and responsive manner. That is, the parents are sensitive to the needs and concerns of their children and forgiving when standards are not fulfilled.
This balance of direction, independence, and sensitivity is assumed to enhance the progress and independence of their children. The children show initiative and confidence.
Like authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting also coincides with expectations of compliance with firm rules and high standards. However, in contrast to authoritative parenting, authoritarian parents discourage dialogues about these rules, exhibiting rigidity and inflexibility. They do not justify the rules with reason or argument. In addition, these parents are not responsive to the needs and concerns of their children.
Their children as a consequence might not show initiative, independence, or curiosity. The capacity of these children to reach suitable decisions in social settings might also be impaired-and instead they might merely follow social norms. These problems might represent limited opportunities to choose which behaviors they would like to pursue early in life. Rebellion might also be common in these children.
Permissive parents are not demanding and do not expect compliance with stringent rules or elevated standards. These parents, however, are warm and responsible, usually sensitive to the needs and concerns of their children. Often, these parents might be driven by a need to be liked by their children.
These children, purportedly, are often impulsive because they do not develop the capacity to regulate their behavior effectively, especially in social relationships. These children are also more likely than peers to be victimized at school. Later, they might exhibit misconduct. Unlike children whose parents are authoritarian, children whose parents are permissive later develop solid relationships with these parents.
Neglect parents are also not demanding, expecting limited compliance with rules and directives. Nevertheless, unlike permissive parents, they are also neglectful and rejecting rather than warm and responsive, insensitive to the concerns and needs of their children. They often seem disengaged from the lives of their children, focused instead on their own lives.
Their attachment style with their parents is, supposedly, characterized by confusion, because they cannot develop a consistent means to cope with neglect. Other social relationships might also be disrupted later in life. They also often engage in risky behavior.
In contrast to the categorization of parenting styles into four classes, some scholars characterize these practices with continuous dimensions. Parker, Tupling, and Brown (1979), for example, developed a measure that comprises two facets: the extent to which parents are responsive and the degree to parents are overprotective.
These two dimensions are sometimes used to develop other classes of parental style. Affectionless control represents low care and high overprotection, for example. Affectionate control represents high care and high overprotection. Weak bonding represents low care and low overprotection, somewhat similar to neglectful parenting. Optimal bonding represents high care and low overprotection (see Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979).
Many scholars also distinguish between facets of overprotection or control. Aunola and Nurmi (2004), for example, discriminate between behavioral control, which entails overt actions to maintain rules, and psychological control, in which parents appeal to guilt and disappointment.
Most of the dimensions that differentiate parenting styles can be divided into three main factors. The first factor is level of warmth and caring, which reflects the extent to which parents respond rapidly and appropriately to support the needs of their children. The second factor relates to level of structure, which represents the degree to which parents introduce clear expectations. The third factor is level of intrusion, in which parents restrict rather than grant autonomy and choice. Typically, high levels of warmth and structure but low levels of intrusion are considered optimal (for a discussion, see Prinze, Stams, Dekovic, Reijintjes, & Belsky, 2009).
According to Baumrind (1966, 1967), the two main dimensions of parenting--restrictiveness or overprotection and nurturance or care--can be mapped onto the four style of parenting. For example, authoritative parenting entails, at least moderately, high level of restrictiveness as wel as high levels of nurturance. Authoritarian parenting entails high restrictiveness but low nurturance. Permissive parenting entails low restrictiveness and high nurturance. And neglectful parenting, a concept developed later (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983), entails low restrictiveness and low nurturance.
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) evaluated the behavior of mothers in the Strange situation on a series of scales, such as level of sensitivity, acceptance, cooperation, and accessibility. These scales were positively correlated with attachment security. In particular, some mothers seemed especially sensitive to the subtle concerns and signals of their children and then respond promptly and appropriately. The children of these mothers were particularly secure: When the mother returned to the room, the child approached her eagerly, but then was willing to explore the room confidently soon afterwards.
This study has been replicated. Nevertheless, some studies demonstrated only modest, rather than pronounced, associations between the sensitivity of mothers and the attachment style of their children (for reviews, see Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987). Methodological weaknesses, such as different conceptualizations of sensitivity, could explain this variation (Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 2010).
To understand the association between the behavior of mothers and the attachment style of children, Wolff and van IJzendoorn (1997) conducted a meta-analysis. The first phase of this meta-analysis was to characterize the various maternal behaviors. A sample of 27 experts in this field evaluated the perceived similarity between 55 ratings, corresponding to four sets of constructs. First, some of the constructs reflected sensitivity, relating to awareness of signals and prompt as well as appropriate responses. Second, some constructs referred to contiguity of responses, which describes whether the responses were prompt regardless of whether they were appropriate. Third, some constructs referred to the quality and quantity of physical responses. Finally, some constructs related to whether or not the mother was intrusive or cooperative. Experts rated these 15 rating scales into sets of similar concepts
Homogeneity analysis using alternating least squares was undertaken to uncover the dimensions that underpin these 55 rating scales. This technique first uncovered 5 clusters of rating scales including synchrony, reflecting whether interactions were mutual and reciprocal, positive mutuality, representing the number of times mothers and children attend to the same activity, emotional support, concerning the degree to which the mother was attentive and supportive of the efforts of their children, positive attitude, representing warmth and delight, as well as stimulation, representing encouragement.
Next, Wolff and van IJzendoorn (1997) subjected past studies that have examined similar concepts to a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that all five clusters--synchrony, mutuality, support, attitude, and stimulation--were positively associated with secure attachment. Effect sizes, however, were moderate for synchrony and mutuality but lower for support, attitude, and stimulation. In addition, the association between sensitivity and secure attachment was moderately associated.
The beliefs and behaviour of individuals can partly be predicted from their experiences with their parents. In particular, if their parents were occasionally supportive and warm, but sometimes neglectful, critical, and unfair-and thus erratic and inconsistent-these individuals overreact to subtle cues. For example, these individuals will recognize each time one of their colleagues shows even mild disappointment. In response, they become very upset, because they, in essence, unconsciously relive all the criticisms and punishment they received from their parents. Hence, they become very sensitive to minor cues of rejection, often concerned they will be neglected by friends and colleagues. They ascribe this rejection to themselves, not to other individuals, and thus feel ashamed and unconfident (Wearden, Peters, Berry, Barrowclough, & Liversidge, 2008).
Psychopathy refers to a constellation of behaviors that can include the tendency of individuals to respond impulsively and aggressively under stress or to behave callously and without any empathy or concern towards other people (see measures of psychopathy). Recent research indicates that parenting style can affect the attachment style of individuals, and this attachment style can shape the level of psychopathy.
To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Craig, Gray, and Snowden (2013), the participants were mainly undergraduate students, postgraduate students, or staff of a university. They completed the parental bonding instrument, to gauge the extent to which their parents had been warm or overprotective during their first 16 years of life. In addition, they completed the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale to measure the degree to which they feel they may be rejected or abandoned, called anxious attachment, and the extent to which they like to detach themselves from close relationships, called avoidant attachment. Finally, participants completed a measure of psychopathy that measures three facets: disinhibition, meanness, and boldness.
Mediation analysis showed that low maternal care and paternal care were associated with anxious attachment, and this anxious attachment was positively associated with disinhibition but negatively associated with boldness. Furthermore, low levels of maternal care were associated with avoidant attachment, and this avoidant attachment was positively associated with disinhibition as well.
Presumably, when parents are neither warm nor affectionate, individuals do not feel they will be supported when problems unfold. They are, therefore, more sensitive to stressful events, such as rejection, manifesting as anxious attachment. Because of this belief they may be rejected rather than supported, they overreact to adversities, undermining their capacity to regulate emotions, culminating in impulsive behavior in stressful circumstances. Yet, because they feel they may be rejected, they do not feel empowered in social settings, diminishing boldness.
In addition, when mothers are neither warm nor affectionate, individuals learn to depend on their own capabilities to protect themselves, manifesting as avoidant attachment. This avoidant attachment may compromise the motivation of individuals to please anyone else, manifesting as impulsive behavior.
Maternal overprotection was not associated with either attachment style or psychopathy. In contrast, the association between paternal overprotection and psychopathy is complex: Paternal overprotection was positively associated with anxious attachment as well as directly and positively related to disinhibition. Paternal overprotection or intrusion may compromise the capacity of individuals to regulate negative emotions themselves, undermining self-control but also promoting a reliance on other people and thus anxious attachment.
Raby et al. (2012) showed that parenting style towards infants affects emotional regulation, whereas specific genes tend to shape emotional sensitivity. In this study, to assess maternal parenting style, mothers and their children were observed during feeding and play. The extent to which the mothers were sensitive to the cues of their infants and then responded promptly and suitably was assessed. In addition, the degree to which the mothers adapted their own behavior to align with the preferences of their infant, facilitating autonomy, and called cooperation, was also evaluated. Furthermore, variation in the 5-HTTLPR gene--related to serotinergic activity and emotional sensitivity--was determined as well. Finally, the infants were exposed to the Strange Situation: a paradigm in which the mother leaves and then returns later.
In infants who were 12 months in age, only the gene predicted the level of distress. That is, infants with the short allele of this gene exhibited more distress than other infants when the mother left, regardless of parenting style, reflecting emotional sensitivity. This association, however, was not significant in infants that were 18 months of age.
In contrast, when mothers were sensitive and cooperative, their infants still showed distress but were pacified quickly when the mother returned, reflecting intact emotional regulation. Indeed, these infants were especially likely to approach their parents excitedly. Whether this relationship was moderated by distress demands more research.
Even the personality of individuals is affected by parental style. Children whose parents were not authoritative, for example, are more inclined to demonstrate a decline in the extent to which they are conscientious (e.g., Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2008).
Likewise, in a meta-analysis, Khaleque and Rohner (2012) showed that parental acceptance affected the personality of their offspring. Specifically, acceptance was positively associated with feelings of independence, self-esteem, self-adequacy, emotional responsiveness, and emotional stability as well as inversely related to aggression. Similarly, adults who remember their parents as accepting were also more likely to exhibit these traits. These findings are consistent with the parental acceptance rejection theory, in which children, after they are rejected, yearn for the support they are not granted but often become unresponsive and independent to protect themselves. They begin to perceive themselves as they assume their parents regard them, consistent with symbolic interaction theory (Cooley, 1902;; Mead, 1934)--unworthy of love and therefore worthless.
Parenting style can also affect the motivation of individuals. To illustrate, when parents are overprotective, their children are more likely to engage in self handicapping (e.g., Want & Kleitman, 2006). For example, before an exam, they might not study at all, consume alcohol, and attend parties late at night-virtually providing an excuse for inadequate performance.
Overprotective parents can also foster a prevention focus in their children. If parents are very protective and authoritarian, their children become vigilant, always striving to fulfill their duties and minimize shortfalls. As a consequence, the principal motivation of these children is to follow rules and satisfy obligations-not pursue aspirations or engage in risky behavior-called a prevention focus (Keller, 2008).
If parents are more authoritative not authoritarian, the children become more receptive to risk. That is, these children strive to fulfill aspirations, rather than attempt to minimize shortfalls. As a consequence, they are often more creative and original, but less vigilant and precise (Keller, 2008).
As Ember and Ember (1994) showed, in societies in which parents show limited levels of warmth, rates of homicide are elevated. Similarly, in societies in which parents are often cold and rejecting rather than warm and accepting, aggression was elevated in both children and adults (Rohner, 1975). Conceivably, according to Rohner (1986), when parents adopt this style, a profound need to receive support and praise, ubiquitous in children, is not fulfilled, provoking frustration and ultimately aggression.
Interestingly, when societies are stratified, and distinct cultures remain isolated from one another, parents are more cold and rejecting (Rohner, 1975). Similarly, sedentary life styles are also associated with this parenting style (Rohner, 1975;; for a review, see Bond, 2004).
Authoritarian behavior in parents can also evoke hostile attitudes and aggressive acts in their children. Gilani and Altaf (2005), for example, showed that authoritarian parenting was positively related to extremist attitudes in their adolescent offspring.
Many studies indicate that parents should be responsive to the cues of their child. Fewer studies, however, characterize this capacity precisely. In contrast, Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014) characterize one key feature of responsive parents: These parents tend to be more responsive to vocalizations in their children that relate to speech. Furthermore, if parents are responsive to speech vocalizations in particular, the children become more likely to vocalize speech sounds than other sounds.
According to Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014), if this sequence of events is impeded because parents do not respond strongly to vocal cues, their children may be more likely to develop autism. That is, the children do not learn that speech vocalizations will attract attention, diminishing the likelihood they will speak to communicate.
Indeed, Warlaumont, Richards, Gilkerson, and Oller (2014) conducted a study that attests to this possibility. In this study, the researchers examined naturalistic interactions between parents and their children, aged between 8 and 48 months. A portion of the children had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
Some key results emerged. In the children who were not diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, adults were more likely to respond within one second to vocalizations that entailed speech, including words, babble, or singing rather than laughing, crying, burping, and coughing. In addition, if one speech vocalization attracted a response within one second, the next vocalization of children was more likely to entail speech as well. In children with autism spectrum disorder, however, parents were not as inclined to respond to speech rather than others sounds. And the vocalizations of their children entailed less speech. Yet, like with the other children, if parents had responded to speech, children diagnosed with autism were also more likely to vocalize speech during the next interaction. This sequence of events, therefore, is observed in children with autism as well.
As many studies indicate, when fathers are absent, their daughters are more likely to engage in promiscuous and sexually risky behaviours. Indeed, DelPriore and Hill (2013) verified the direction of causality: Cues that prime thoughts about the absence of fathers increased the likelihood that women would endorse sexually risky behaviors, such as intercourse without condoms.
To illustrate, in one study, female undergraduate students wrote about a time in which their fathers were either absent and unavailable when needed or present and supportive when needed. Next, they received a series of word stems, like - A K - D, each of which could be completed with either a sexual word or a non-sexual word. If participants had written about a time their father was absent, they were more likely to recognize the sexual alternatives. This finding indicates that cues intended to prime father absence increased the accessibility of sexual thoughts.
Subsequent studies confirmed, clarified, and extended these findings. For example, primes that cue father absence were shown to increase the likelihood that female participants would endorse statements like "Sex without love is OK" and could name more men with whom they would be willing to engage in sex. Absent friends, rather than absent fathers however, did not generate the same pattern of results. Likewise, absent fathers did not evoke positive attitudes to risky behaviors that were not related to sex, such as eating junk food.
This pattern of observations is consistent with parental investment theory (e.g., Ellis, 2004). According to this theory, if fathers are absent during a sensitive period of development in their children, they signify to their daughters that men are often unavailable. Consequently, these daughters develop the assumption that investment in partners is ineffective. Instead, they seek transient rather than enduring relationships.
This pattern of observations cannot be as readily ascribed to psychosocial acceleration theory (Belsky et al., 1991). According to this theory, if individuals are reared in harsh, unpredictable conditions, they learn to engage in behaviors that generate immediate benefits rather than future benefits. The absence of fathers, or other adversities, may thus prompt behaviors that are more impulsive rather than considered. Yet, in this study, the absence of fathers did not prompt risky behaviors in general.
The behavior of parents can also affect whether or not these children will be become leaders later in life. In particular, if parents are authoritative--in which they are supportive but impose consistent rules--their children are likely to assume leadership roles as they age.
This possibility was uncovered by Avolio, Rotundo, and Walumbwa (2009). In this study, participants completed questions about the behaviors of their parents. Some of the questions gauged the degree to which individuals felt their parents are supportive and involved, such as "I talked about my problems and experiences with this parent". Other questions gauged the degree to which individuals felt their parents impose consistent rules and structure, such as "This parent made it clear to me what he or she wanted me to do and not do". Finally, several years later, participants indicated whether or not they have emerged as leaders in various domains, such as work.
If parents demonstrated both involvement and structure, the two key features of authoritative leadership, their children were likely to become leaders years later. Perhaps, because they feel supported but certain about how to behave, these individuals are more willing to trust their initiative rather than strive vigilantly to please other people.
The performance of individuals, either at school or at work, also depends on the practices their parents applied. For example, when mothers are controlling, by appealing to pride, guilt and disappointment, the mathematics performance of their children is not proficient-although this association is pronounced only when these mothers are also affectionate (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). This finding is important, because usually affection buffers the deleterious effects of overprotection (Gray & Steinberg, 1999)-which is related to, but distinct from, psychological control.
Conceivably, such controlling behaviors, coupled with affection, could represent a manifestation of enmeshment (e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996), which can curb autonomy and ultimately compromise academic performance. Psychological control coupled with affection can exacerbate fears of failure, partly because the children receive conflicting messages, sometimes experiencing the shock that disappointment can provoke (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Third, this parenting style might represent emotional tendencies in mothers, who thus do not provide the rational support that is needed to cultivate academic skills (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004).
Many factors affect the parenting style that individuals adopt. One of the main determinants is the behavior of their own parents. Nevertheless, temperament, education, and culture also influence parenting style. To illustrate, authoritarian parenting is more prevalent in dangerous neighborhoods, often as a means to prevent risks. Indeed, several studies show that harsher parenting practices coincide with low socioeconomic status (Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, & Conger, 2008).
As Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijintjes, and Belsky (2009) showed, the parental style that individuals adopt depends on their personality traits, as represented by the five factor model. In particular, if individuals demonstrate elevated levels of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience--personality traits that are usually considered desirable--they are more inclined to report warmth, in which they respond rapidly to support the needs of their children, as well as structure, in which they impose clear expectations. Furthermore, if individuals exhibit agreeableness and emotional stability, they support rather than restrict autonomy and choice.
Similarly, Metsapelto and Pulkkinen (2003) also argued and showed that personality in parents affected the style or approaches they adopted to raise their children. For example, if parents report elevated levels of openness to experience, they are not as rigid in their expectations. They will, therefore, grant more latitude to their children and not behave as intrusively. Furthermore, these parents are often more sensitive to emotions in general. They are, therefore, more receptive to the needs of their children, manifesting as warmth. Introversion, however, can sometimes curb this sensitivity, because the attention of parents might be oriented to their own private thoughts.
Some parents experience a calling to be a parent. That is, they deem parenting to be central to their identity. They always felt destined to be a parent and perceive parenting as a central mission or purpose in their life. Their responsibilities as parents engulf their awareness. Furthermore, they feel passionate about these responsibilities.
As Coulson, Oades, and Stoyles (2012) showed, when individuals experience this calling to be a parent they tend to apply more effective parenting styles. That is, they tend to be authoritative rather than authoritarian or permissive. They apply fair rules but are not too dogmatic or lenient.
In particular, in this study, parents completed a scale that assesses calling to be a parent. The scale comprised three factors: the extent to which parenting is central to their purpose and identity (e.g., "One of the main reasons I am on earth is to be a parent"), the degree to which parenting responsibilities engulf their awareness (e.g., "Even when my children are not with me I am thinking about them"), and the extent to which they feel passionate about these responsibilities (e.g., "I can't wait to spend time with my children").
All three measures of calling were positively associated with authoritative parenting. These measures, besides engulfing awareness, were negatively associated with the other variants of parenting: authoritarian and permissive. Furthermore, in general, this calling was positively associated with satisfaction in life and satisfaction with parenting as well as positive affect and meaning in life.
As Millings, Walsh, Hepper, and O'Brien (2013) showed, the attachment style of individuals shapes their parenting style. In particular, when parents report anxious or avoidant attachment styles, in which they are unduly sensitive to rejection or uncomfortable with intimacy, they are not as responsive to each other& they dismiss emotions. That is, they are not as physically close with each other, sensitive to the emotions of their partner, or as willing to assist this person. This behavior then shapes their parenting style, and they become less caring towards their children, manifesting as an authoritarian or permissive rather than authoritative style.
Specifically, in one study, participants, all of whom were parents of young children, completed the Experiences in Close Relationships Revised scale to gauge their own attachment styles. In addition, they completed the Caregiving Questionnaire to gauge the extent to which they are responsive to the needs of their partner or spouse. Finally, they completed questions that assess their parenting style.
As structural equation modeling showed, anxious and avoidant attachment styles in parents were inversely associated with the degree to which they were responsive to each other. Furthermore, anxious attachment styles was directly and positively associated with authoritarian and permissive parental styles. Finally, parents who were not responsive to each other were more likely to report authoritarian and permissive, rather than authoritative, parental styles.
Presumably, when individuals are concerned about rejection, they monitor their own behavior closely, diminishing their sensitivity to other people. In contrast, if uncomfortable with close relationships, individuals shun intimacy. Therefore, both variants of insecure attachment may inhibit the tendency to care. That is, the caregiving system is inhibited. When this system is inhibited, parents may not be as responsive to the needs of their children, diminishing support and involvement, vital to authoritative parenting. Furthermore, if parents exhibited anxious attachment, their fixation with themselves could also undermine this support and involvement.
After parents are reminded of terrorist incidents, they become more likely to embrace or adopt an authoritarian parenting style. For example, in one study, conducted by Fischer, Fischer, Frey, Such, Smyth, Tester, and Kastenmuller (2013), participants were exposed to pictures or newspaper articles. The pictures depicted either the consequences of terrorist attacks or peaceful scenes, such as flowers. The newspaper articles indicated that terrorist attacks are either impending or unlikely. Participants then specified the degree to which they feel various emotions. Finally, these individuals answered questions that gauge their attitudes towards various parental practices, such as "Sometimes I punish my child rather harshly for only little norm violations" and "Children should obey older people". Exposure to reminders of terrorism, in the context of pictures or newspaper articles, did not affect mood but did increase the likelihood these parents would endorse authoritarian practices.
A second study replicated these findings with a sample of actual parents. A final study showed that reminders of terrorism prompted authoritarian behaviour in parents towards their children. That is, after they were exposed to reminders of terrorism, parents displayed more negative emotions towards their child while they participated in a game.
These findings are consistent with threat to social order theory (Rucker, Polifroni, Tetlock, & Scott, 2004), derived from system justification theory, mortality salience, control restoration effects, and personal uncertainty management theory. In particular, when social order may be threatened, individuals feel compelled to restore this order. They attempt to control the environment, manifesting as a range of behaviors, such as a preference towards status quo, severe punishment of violations, and authoritarian practices.
According to Deater-Deckard, Sewell, Petrill, and Thompson (2010), working memory capacity can also enhance parental style. Specifically, when the working memory of individuals is extensive, they can more readily form and implement intentions to override their natural inclinations. They can reappraise demanding contexts, such as disobedient children, curbing their frustration, irritation, or anxiety (e.g., Ochsner & Gross, 2005. Their negative emotions dissipate. They can, therefore, behave more thoughtfully and supportively.
Deater-Deckard, Sewell, Petrill, and Thompson (2010) conducted a study to substantiate these arguments. In this study, the behavior of 216 mothers of twins was examined. Each twin participated in two challenging tasks: drawing pictures with an Etch a Sketch and maneuvering a marble through a tilting maze box.
As each child completed these tasks, the behavior of mothers and children were monitored carefully. The extent to which the mothers exhibited anger, frustration, and annoyance was assessed. Furthermore, the degree to which the children seemed disobedient and distressed rather than persistent and compliant was also rated. Finally, the working memory of mothers was assessed: In particular, the number of digits they could recall was evaluated, using the WAIS.
Mothers who exhibited an impaired working memory directed appreciably more negative emotions to the child who was more disobedient and distressed. Mothers who exhibited an extensive working memory did not always direct their negative emotions to the child who was more disobedient and distressed& these mothers could more readily regulate their negative emotions.
Many studies have shown that restrictive parenting tends to diminish self-control (for a review, see Sheikh & Janoff-Bulman, 2013). That is, if adolescents perceive their parents as restrictive, they often yield to temptations and engage in risky, destructive, or antisocial behaviors.
According to Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013), in the past, scholars have often assumed that restrictive parents diminish any sense of choice in their children. Consequently, the children do not internalize the moral norms and, therefore, behave immorally. But, this account does not align to the finding that restrictive parents increase feelings of shame in their children--and this shame implies that moral norms have been internalized.
Instead, Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013) offered another account to explain the impact of restrictive parents. Specifically, when parents are nurturing, children are rewarded when they engage in desired behaviors, such as helping strangers. These children, therefore, will become more attuned to the behaviors they should undertake to attract rewards. In contrast, when parents are restrictive, children are punished whenever they engage in undesired behaviors, such as shouting too loudly. These children will become more attuned to the behaviors they should avoid. That is, "don'ts" become more salient than "dos".
Therefore, if parents are restrictive, the attention of children is often directed to temptations they should avoid. These temptations become very salient. Therefore, consistent with the motivational inference model (Denzler, Forster, Liberman, & Rozenman, 2010), the children infer they must really desire these temptations. Their capacity to resist these temptations diminishes, and self-control plummets.
Sheikh and Janoff-Bulman (2013) conducted a series of studies to validate this account. The first study showed that undergraduate students who perceived their parents as restrictive, often scolding and punishing their children, were more sensitive to temptations that should be avoided rather than desirable behaviors that should be enacted. When reading scenarios about temptations, these students felt the protagonist must resist these behaviors. When reading scenarios about desirable behaviors, such as the possibility of helping someone, they were not as concerned about the behavior or actions of the protagonist. This pattern of observations was observed only if participants answered questions about whether their parents were restrictive before answering questions about whether their parents were nurturing& presumably, this sequence of questions primed the notion of restrictiveness more strongly.
The second study showed that people who perceived their parents as restrictive did perceive a set of temptations, such as driving drunk, skipping class, driving recklessly, stealing, experimenting with drugs, and cheating on exams, as more tempting. The final study showed that people who perceived their parents as restrictive, if primed to consider temptations they should avoid, performed less effectively on a Stroop task. That is, the combination of restrictive parents and awareness of temptations seemed to deplete mental energy and, therefore, compromise performance on a task that demands concentration.
Several complications to this issue of parenting style still need to be resolved. First, genetics, rather than parenting style, might underpin some of the purported effects of parenting behavior. Harsh parents, for example, might produce harsh children, because of genetic underpinnings.
Second, recent evidence indicates the behavior and temperament of children affects the styles and practices of parents. Hence, some of the observed relationships between parental style and childhood behavior could be ascribed to this mechanism (e.g., Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003).
Indeed, scholars now examine the interaction between the temperament of children and the behavior of parents. From the perspective of Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, and Stewart (2003), for example, when infants are difficult to soothe, and instead are irritable, the capacity of parents to offer a supportive environment is compromised, especially if these parents themselves are stressed because of difficulties in their life or exhibit an insensitive disposition. As a consequence, the child becomes increasingly likely to perceive the other figures in their life as unpredictable and unavailable. This temperament in the children, coupled with the corresponding distrust, can undermine the capacity to form social relationships in the future.
Some longitudinal studies, however, showed that parental style affected the performance of children but not vice versa (e.g., Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Hence, parenting style does influence childhood behavior or characteristics, at least in some settings.
The parental bonding instrument, or PBI, was validated by Parker, Tupling, and Brown (1979)--and is usually completed by the children (for related scales, see Parker, Roussos, Hadzi-Pavlovic, Mitchell, Wilhelm, & Austin, 1997). This instrument comprises 25 items, which relate to perceptions and beliefs about the behavior of their parents when the respondents were 16 or younger. Participants usually complete the instrument twice: once to rate their mother and also to rate their father.
The instrument comprises two sets of items. The first set reflect the extent to which parents are caring, warm, affectionate, empathic, and responsive rather than cold, indifferent, rejecting, and unresponsive, with items like " ...seemed emotionally cold to me" (reverse scored). The second set of items reflects the degree to which parents are overprotective, intrusive, and controlling rather than detached, fostering independence, such as "... was overprotective of me".
The psychometric properties of this instrument are acceptable. For example, parenting style, as represented by the PBI, align with reports from witnesses, independent observers, and twins (see Parker, 1989;; Parker & Lipscombe, 1981). Furthermore, Parker (1989) showed that responses are unrelated to the mood state of respondents.
Subsequently, Murphy, Brewin, and Silka (1997) subjected the responses to this instrument to a factor analysis. Three rather than two factors emerged. In particular, overprotection was divided into two distinct factors: denial of psychological autonomy and encouragement of behavioral freedom.
The PCSQ, formulated by Hazan and Shaver (1986), is designed to assess the extent to which parents are caring. The respondents read three paragraphs, each describing one style: warm and responsive& rejecting and not respective& and ambivalent or inconsistent. Respondents rate the extent to which their parents demonstrate the depicted characteristics, on a 7 point scale, once for their month and once for their father.
Buri (1991;; see also Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) developed the parental authority questionnaire, which comprises 30 items are assesses the extent to which parents are authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative, as defined by Baumrind (1971). For example, to measure an authoritative style, a typical item is "My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable".
The CRPR, developed by Roberts, Block, and Block (1984), comprises 28 items-and is usually completed by the parents. This questionnaire assesses the extent to which parents show affection, encourage independence, punish children, control by invoking guilt, and provide rational guidance. Items include "I believe that praise is more effective than punishment", "If my child misbehaves, I usually punish him or her", "I believe scolding may be helpful", "I often joke with my child", "It is important that children obey their parents", and "I express my affection by hugging and holding my child". Parents specify the extent to which these descriptions apply.
Aunola and Nurmi (2004) subjected these items to a factor analysis. They uncovered three factors: affection, behavioral control-such as clear expectations and valuing obedience-and psychological control, appealing to pride and guilt. The test-retest correlations ranged between .75 and .78 for affection, between .57 and .62 for behavioral control, and between .69 and .72 for psychological control. Behavioral control was positively, but modestly, related to each other.
The parenting scale, developed by Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, and Acker (1993), comprises 30 items that assess the practices parents use to discipline their children. Three factors have emerged: over-reactivity, laxness, and verbosity (Arnold et al., 1993). Cronbach's alpha is .83, .82, and .63 for these three subscales respectively. Prinzie, Onghena, and Hellinckx (2007) uncovered only two factors: over-reactivity and laxness.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1974). Infant-mother attachment and social development: "Socialization" as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M. P. M.Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social world (pp. 99-135). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C. Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situatin. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a Strange Situation. In B. M.Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 11-136). London: Methuen.
Arnold, D.S., O'Leary, S.G., Wolff, L.S., & Acker, M.M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting and discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a child's mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965-978
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222.
Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. E. (2009). Early life experiences as determinants of leadership role occupancy: The importance of parental influence and rule breaking behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 329-342.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 17-31
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319
Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations between parental psychological control and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 238-276.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110-119.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647-670. doi:10.2307/1131166
Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression--from context to coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62-78.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.
Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.
Coulson, J. C., Oades, L. G., & Stoyles, G. J. (2012). Parents' subjective sense of calling in childrearing: Measurement, development and initial findings. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 83-94. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2011.633547
Craig, R. L., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2013). Recalled parental bonding, current attachment, and the triarchic conceptualisation of psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 345-350. doi: /10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.012
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Deater-Deckard, K., Sewell, M. D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2010). Maternal working memory and reactive negativity in parenting. Psychological Science, 21, 75-79.
DelPriore, D. J., & Hill, S. E. (2013). The effects of paternal disengagement on women's sexual decision making: an experimental approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 234-246. doi: 10.1037/a0032784
Denzler, M., Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Rozenman, M. (2010). Aggressive, funny, and thirsty: A motivational inference model (MIMO) approach to behavioral rebound. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1385-1396. doi:10.1177/0146167210382663
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: An integrated life history approach. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 920-958. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.920
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1994). War, socialization, and interpersonal violence: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 620-646.
Fischer, P., Fischer, J., Frey, D., Such, M., Smyth, M., Tester, M., & Kastenmuller, A. (2013). Causal evidence that terrorism salience increases authoritarian parenting practices. Social Psychology, 41, 246-254. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000033
Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Parental style and child bullying and victimization experiences at school. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 213-227
Gilani, N., & Altaf, R. (2005). Tendencies of extremism among adolescents and post-adolescents in relation to parenting style. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 27-40.
Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescents' attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant predictors of attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 805-816.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574-587.
Harris, J. R. (2000). The outcome of parenting: What we really know? Journal of Personality, 68, 625-637.
Haslam, M., Mountford, V., Meyer, C., & Waller, G. (2008). Invalidating childhood environments in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Eating Behaviors, 9, 313-318
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualised as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-523.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental styles, conscientiousness, and academic performance in high school: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 451-461.
Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Mak, A. (2004). The impact of adolescent and parental characteristics on adolescent levels of delinquency and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 173-185.
Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R. C., Salsedo, O., Gobioff, G. R., & Gadd, R. (2000). The relationship between parenting style and children's adjustment: The parents' perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 231-245.
Keller, J. (2008). On the development of regulatory focus: The role of parenting styles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 354-364.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relationships with parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6. Developmental psychology (pp. 395-419). New York: Wiley.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2012). Transnational relations between perceived parental acceptance and personality dispositions of children and adults: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 103-115. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418986
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.
McBride-Chang, C., & Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 421-436.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Meins, M., Jones, S. R., Fernyhough, C., Hurndall, S., & Koronis, P. (2008). Attachment dimensions and schizotypy in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1000-1011.
Metsapelto, R., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality, 17, 59-78.
Miller, J. M., Diiorio, C., & Dudley, W. (2002). Parenting style and adolescent's reaction to conflict: Is there a relationship? Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 463-468.
Millings, A., Walsh, J., Hepper, E., & O'Brien, M. (2013). Good partner, good parent: Responsiveness mediates the link between romantic attachment and parenting style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 170-180. doi:10.1177/0146167212468333
Murphy, E., Brewin, C. R., & Silka, L. (1997). The assessment of parenting using the parental bonding instrument: Two or three factors. Psychological Medicine, 27, 333-342.
Parker, G. (1983). Parental overprotection: A risk factor in psychosocial development. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Parker, G. (1990). The parental bonding instrument: A decade of research. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 25, 281-282.
Parker, G., Roussos, J., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Mitchell, P., Wilhelm, K., & Austin, M. P. (1997) The development of a refined measure of dysfunctional parenting and assessment of its relevance in patients with affective disorders. Psychological Medicine, 1997, 27, 1193-1203.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children's adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68, 908-923.
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Reexamining the Parenting Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 24-31.
Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Dekovic, M., Reijintjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents' Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351-362.
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1 Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 255-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raby, K. L., Cicchetti, D., Carlson, E. a, Cutuli, J. J., Englund, M. M., & Egeland, B. (2012). Genetic and caregiving-based contributions to infant attachment: Unique associations with distress reactivity and attachment security. Psychological science, 23, 1016-1023. doi:10.1177/0956797612438265
Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 289-305.
Reitman, D., Rhode, P. C., Hupp, S. D. A., & Altobello, C. (2002). Development and validation of the Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 119-127.
Roberts, G. C., Block, H., & Block, J. (1984). Continuity and change in parents' child-rearing practices. Child Development, 55, 586-597.
Rohner, R. P. (1975). They love me, they love me not: A worldwide study of the effects of parental acceptance and rejection. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental-acceptance theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. L. (2003). Social withdrawal in childhood. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 372-406). New York: Guilford Press.
Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. A. (2001). Emotion regulation, parenting and display of social reticence in preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 12, 97-115.
Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). The socioemotional characteristics of extremely aggressive and extremely withdrawn children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518-534.
Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C. L., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326-356.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R. S. L. (1989). Sociability and social withdrawal in childhood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Personality, 57, 237-255.
Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Scott, A. L. (2004). On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 673-684.
Scaramella, L. V., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L. L., & Conger, R. D. (2008). Consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage across three generations: Parenting behavior and child externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 725-733
Shah, R., & Waller, G. (2002). Parental style and vulnerability to depression - the role of core beliefs. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 19-25.
Sheikh, S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2013). Paradoxical consequences of prohibitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 301-315. doi: 10.1037/a0032278
Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1998). Harsh, firm, and permissive parenting in low-income families: Relations to children's academic achievement and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 483-507.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 41-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting practices, parenting styles and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and self-handicapping: Links with parenting styles and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 961-971.
Warlaumont, A. S., Richards, J. A, Gilkerson, J., & Oller, D. K. (2014). A social feedback loop for speech development and its reduction in autism. Psychological Science, . doi:10.1177/0956797614531023
Wearden, A., Peters, I., Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Liversidge, T. (2008). Adult attachment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and others. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1246-1257.
Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571-591.
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. (2003). Percieved parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 521-531.
Last Update: 6/22/2016