Diagnosing Parenting Styles

Running head: PARENTING STYLES

Diagnosing Parenting Styles through Children’s Sports and Academic Settings

Cassandra Valentine

3120 Abnormal Psychology

Anderson University

Introduction

Since before the 1920’s developmental psychologists have studied how parents affect the development of their children. According to Nancy Darling (2000), “Parenting is a complex activity that includes many specific behaviors that work individually and together to influence child outcomes.” In 1967 Dr. Diana Baumrind organized specific parental behaviors and labeled them as parenting styles. Of the specific behaviors, there are two major “elements of parenting; these are parental responsiveness and parental demandingness” (Maccoby & Martin, 1983, as cited in Darling, 2000). From these criteria, three parenting styles were determined. The three most recognized and accredited styles are: permissive, authorative, and authoritarian (Baumrind, 1967, as cited in Grobman, 2003).

The issue of parenting style has been a long standing concern in the school setting. “Authoritative parenting […] is positively associated with student achievement for elementary and secondary students (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987, as cited in All parents are teachers). “In contrast, permissive (under control) and authoritarian (over control) parenting are negatively correlated with student achievement, as measured by grades and standardized test scores” (Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991, as cited in All parents are teachers).

Recently, parenting styles have become central issues of discussion and debate particularly in sport settings. There is evidence that some parents have crossed professional, even ethical lines at sporting events in front of their children. There have even been accounts of fatalities due to parent’s unsportsmanlike conduct. “In July 2000, a man named Thomas Junta attended his son’s hockey practice near Boston. Junta disagreed with the way Michael Costin, a coach and fellow hockey parent, was running practice. The two ended up fighting, and Costin died from the injuries he sustained in the fight” (Sepich, 2002). This is a severe example of an overly involved parent and a great concern for parents. This is such an important issue for coaches and for teams that some sport leagues, in addition to a player’s code of conduct, “…have even written separate codes that specifically address parental behavior” (Sepich, 2002) (See Appendix E).

It is evident that parenting styles greatly affect a child’s life. The proposed diagnostic systems are designed for coaches and teachers as an instrument to distinguish parenting styles.

Diagnostic Systems

The two diagnostic systems that the author proposed were designed to diagnose parenting style by measuring parental involvement and responsiveness, specifically in the settings of children’s sports and academics. The purpose for creating the two diagnostic systems was to determine parenting style by means of analyzing case studies of three parents in the settings of children’s sports and academics. Furthermore, the purpose of this study was to determine reliability and validity of each of the diagnostic systems. Reliability will be determined by comparing the results of 10 diagnosticians. Reliability is a measurement of consistency. Particularly, reliability is a measurement of a system’s consistency of yielding the same results. Validity will be determined by comparing the results of the diagnosticians with the results of three experts. Specifically, validity is a measurement of a system’s ability to produce the desired results. Both systems are divided into three mutually exclusive categories of: permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian parenting style. Quantitative measurements will be determined through less broad behaviors for each diagnostic system.

Diagnostic system number one specifically diagnoses parenting style in regards to parental involvement in children’s sports settings. The permissive parent is characterized by interacting in “an acceptant and affirmative manner towards the child’s impulses, desires, and actions. [The parent] consults with their child about policies and decisions as well as gives explanations for family rules. [The parent is characterized by making] few demands for household responsibilities, and orderly behavior. [The parent also] presents himself to the child as a resource for him to use as he wishes, not as an active agent responsible for shaping or altering the child’s ongoing or future behavior. [The parent] allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible. [The parent] avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage the child to obey externally defined standards. [Finally, the permissive parent] attempts to use reason but not over power to accomplish her ends” (Baumrind, 1967, as cited in Grobman, 2003) (See Appendix A).

In addition, the permissive parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (>2) times child was late to practice/games; late to be picked up:

▪ (>2) times child was not prepared for practice/game:

▪ (<5) times parent attended of the 10 games:

▪ (0 – 5) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 team activities:

▪ (< 5) times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the coach:

▪ (< 5) times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/coach:

▪ (<5) times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/coach:

“[The authoritative parent] direct[s] the child’s activities but [does so] in a rational issue-oriented way. [The parent] encourages verbal give and take and shares with their child the reasoning behind her policy. [The parent] values both expressive and instrumental attributes, autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity. [The parent] exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but she does not hem the child in with restrictions. [The parent] recognizes her own special rights as an adult but also the child’s individual interests and special ways. [The parent also] affirms the child’s present qualities but also sets standards for future conduct. [The parent] uses reasoning as well as power to achieve her objectives. [The parent] does not base her decisions on group consensus or the individual child’s desires; but also does not regard herself as infallible, or divinely inspired” (Baumrind, 1967 as cited in Grobman, 2003) (See Appendix A).

In addition, the authoritative parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (1-2) times child was late to practice/game; late to be picked up:

▪ (<2) times child was not prepared for practice/game:

▪ (5 – 9) of times parent attended of the 10 games:

▪ (5 – 9) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 team activities:

▪ (< 5) times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the coach:

▪ (> 5) times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/coach:

▪ (0) times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/coach:

“[The authoritarian parent] shapes[s], control[s] and evaluate[s] the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set of standards of conduct usually an absolute standard, theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority. [The parent] values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points where the child’s actions of beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct. [The parent] believes in inculcating such instrumental values as respect for authority, respect for work, and respect for the preservation of order and traditional structure. [The parent] does not encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should accept her word for what is right” (Baumrind, 1967, as cited in Grobman, 2003) (See Appendix A).

In addition, the authoritarian parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (0) times child was late to practice/game; late to be picked up:

▪ (0) of times child was not prepared for practice/game:

▪ (10) times parent attended of the 10 games:

▪ (10) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 team activities:

▪ (> 5) of times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the coach:

▪ (> 5) of times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/ coach:

▪ (> 5) of times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/teacher:

Diagnostic system number two specifically diagnoses parenting style in regards to parental involvement in children’s academic settings. This diagnostic system will utilize the exact criterion for its categories as in diagnostic system number one. The measurable characteristics are as follows:

The permissive parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (>2) times child was late to school; late to be picked up:

▪ (>2) times child was not prepared for class:

▪ (<5) times parent attended of the 10 of the student teacher conferences:

▪ (0 – 5) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 class activities:

▪ (< 5) times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the teacher:

▪ (< 5) times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/teacher:

▪ (<5) times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/teacher:

The authoritative parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (1-2) times child was late to school; late to be picked up:

▪ (<2) times child was not prepared for class:

▪ (5 – 9) of times parent attended of the 10 of the student teacher conferences:

▪ (5 – 9) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 class activities:

▪ (< 5) times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the teacher:

▪ (> 5) times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/teacher:

▪ (0) times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/teacher:

The authoritarian parent, according to this specific diagnostic system, exhibits the following measurable characteristics:

▪ (0) times child was late to school; late to be picked up:

▪ (0) of times child was not prepared for class:

▪ (10) times parent attended of the 10 of the student teacher conferences:

▪ (10) times parent volunteered to help of the 10 class activities:

▪(> 5) of times parent aggressively/defensively confronted the teacher:

▪(> 5) of times parent verbally supported/encouraged child/ teacher:

▪ (> 5) of times parent verbally embarrassed/critiqued child/teacher:

Method

Participants

Ten students from an abnormal psychology class at a small Midwestern university participated as diagnosticians. Three Family Science and Social Work professors from the same university participated as the experts. Two of the professors have graduate degrees in M.S.W. and the other professor has graduate degrees in M.S.C., M.S. and a Ph.D.

Procedure

Three case studies, along with the two diagnostic systems, were distributed to the 10 diagnosticians (See Appendix B). The same three case studies, along with the two diagnostic systems were also distributed to the three experts. Estimated reliability for each diagnostic system was 80%. Reasons for this included the anticipation of misunderstandings due to the intricate details as well as the length of each case study and diagnostic system. Estimated validity for each diagnostic system was 90%. The expert’s attention of specific parental behaviors and a deeper understanding of the subject matter were the reasons that 90% was estimated for validity. Reliability will be determined by comparing the results of 10 diagnosticians. More specifically, reliability will be determined by summing the most frequently diagnosed category (from each case study) and dividing that figure by the total number of diagnoses (See Appendix C, Table 3). Validity will be determined by comparing the results of the diagnosticians with the results of the three experts. More distinctively, validity will be determined by summing the experts’ number of correct diagnoses for each of the case studies (from each diagnostic system) and dividing that figure by the total number of diagnoses (See Appendix C, Table 3).

Results

After distributing the diagnostic systems with the case studies to the 10 diagnosticians, 100% reliability was found for both diagnostic systems. Of the 10 diagnosticians, not one produced a deviant score in either diagnostic system (See Appendix C, Table 1). After distributing the same diagnostic systems and three case studies to the three professors, 100% validity was also found with both diagnostic systems. Of the three experts, not one produced a deviant score in either diagnostic system (See Appendix C, Table 2).

Discussion

The results suggested that the two proposed diagnostic systems were reliable and valid measurements of parenting styles; more specifically permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian parenting styles. One hundred percent reliability implies that the two diagnostic systems were consistent measurements of parenting styles. One hundred percent validity implies that the two diagnostic systems were accurate measurements of parenting styles.

Although, this study suggested that the two diagnostic systems were 100% reliable and valid, this does not imply that reliability predicts validity. Even though reliability is a measurement of a system’s consistency of yielding the same results, a system can be consistently erroneous. On the other hand, since validity is a measurement of a system’s ability to produce the desired result, validity cannot be less than reliability.

Given that this particular study produced 100% reliability and validity, there must have been some aspects to the diagnostic systems that allowed this. Perhaps the combination of characteristics with measurable characteristics allowed the diagnosticians and experts to directly distinguish between each of the parenting styles. Perhaps the author undervalued that much detail could have provided a greater understanding for the diagnostician. Evidently the estimated predictions were nullified.

Even though reliability and validity were both 100%, this does not infer that these diagnostic systems can diagnose every single parental behavior. Diagnostic systems can classify several behaviors at once; however not all behaviors are accounted for. As a result, there is information that is gained as well as lost with every diagnostic system. For these particular diagnostic systems, information about general parenting styles was obtained. The information that was discussed within the two diagnostic systems has a tendency to be pervasive characteristics and observable measurements of each parenting style in relation to sport and academic settings. Broad characteristics allow a diagnostician to easily have a general distinction between categories of parenting styles.

Since these categories are broad, specific information is lost at the same time. For example, if a parent shows strong tendencies as a permissive parent, it is not for certain that they cannot show a specific assertive action. Furthermore, there are countless miniature behaviors that indicate parenting styles. For example, body language might contribute greatly to parenting style; such as how a parent affectionately touches their child. Since these sorts of behaviors are extremely hard to fully document, researchers are forced to categorize broad characteristics and measurable behaviors.

In particular, diagnostic system number one gained broad information about parenting style as it related to children’s sports. General tendencies were obtained as well as distinct measurable characteristics, such as the number of times the parent attended games throughout the season. On the other hand, information was lost. For example, even though the number of times a parent aggressively confronted the coach was a measurable characteristic, it does not imply the degree of aggressiveness. Such as, “That was a dumb choice coach” versus “If you don’t put Johnny into this game I am going to take your butt to the school board and have you fired. You would not want that would you, especially with basketball season approaching?” Other information such as the number of times the parent practices the sport skills with their child outside of practice is unknown under this system. Therefore, as broad information is gained about parenting style in this diagnostic system, precise information about parenting style is lost at the same time. Perhaps the broad characteristics in combination with the less broad measurable characteristics enabled this diagnostic system to produce such high reliability and validity.

In addition, diagnostic system two gained broad information about parenting style as it related to children’s academics. General tendencies were also obtained as well as distinct measurable characteristics, such as the number of times the parent attended parent teacher conferences throughout the school year. On the other hand, information was lost. For example, even though the number of times a parent verbally supported their child was a measurable characteristic, it does not imply the degree of support. Such as, “Good job” versus “I am very proud of you no matter what grade you received on your project; we both know how much effort you put into it, I couldn’t be happier for you.” Other information such as the number of times the parent helps their child with homework is unknown under this system. Therefore, as broad information is gained about parenting style in this diagnostic system, precise information about parenting style is lost at the same time. Perhaps the broad characteristics in combination with the less broad measurable characteristics enabled this diagnostic system to produce such high reliability and validity.

Perhaps if coaches and teachers were more educated about parenting styles, they might be able to distinguish which parents could possibly benefit or threaten a positive leaning environment. Perhaps a diagnostic system could be the right tool.

References

All parents are teachers: Review research. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2004, from http://www.parenting.umn.edu/apat/RR/Other/rr01-c02.html.

Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. Eric digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education Champaign IL. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from ERIC Database http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed427896.html.

Grobman, K.H. (2003). Diana Baumrind’s theory of parenting styles: Original descriptions of the styles (1967). Retrieved September 9, 2004, from http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/parent/baumrind_styles.html.

Sepich, S. (2002). When parents are bad sports. Retrieved September 30, 2004, from http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2002/if_20021011p184_sports.asp.

Your role as a little league parent. (1993). Retrieved September 30, 2004, from http://www.littleleague.org/manuals/parents/yourrole.htm.

Appendix A

Definitions of Parenting Styles as defined by Diana Baumrind (1967).

Permissive Parents: behave in acceptance and affirmative manner towards the child’s impulses, desires, and actions. The parent consults with the child about policy and decisions and gives explanations for family rules.

~Parent makes few demands for household responsibilities, and orderly behavior.

~Parent presents himself to the child as a resource for him to use as he wishes, not as an active agent responsible for shaping or altering his ongoing or future behavior.

~Parent allows child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards.

~Parent attempts to use reason but not over power to accomplish her ends

Authoritative Parents: direct the child’s activities but in a rational issue-oriented way.

~Parent encourages verbal give and take and shares with the child the reasoning behind her policy.

~Parent values both expressive and instrumental attribute, autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity.

~Parent exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but she does not hem the child in with restrictions

~Parent recognizes her own special rights as an adult but also the child’s individual interests and special ways

~Parent affirms the child’s present qualities bust also stets standards for future conduct.

~Parent uses reasoning as well as power to achieve her objectives.

~Parent does not base her decision on group consensus or the individual child’s desires; but also does not regard herself as infallible, or divinely inspired

Authoritarian Parents: shape, control and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set of standards of conduct usually an absolute standard, theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority.

~Parent values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points where the child’s actions of beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct

~Parent believes in inculcating such instrumental values as respect for authority, respect for work, and respect for the preservation of order and traditional structure.

~Parent does not encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should accept her word for what is right.

Appendix B

Case Study Number One: Paul, 37, is a father of a son who is age 8. Paul is very active in his son’s life. He is especially active in his son’s sports and academics. Paul has engaged in conversations with the coach and teacher several times and has confronted them both with compliments throughout the season. Paul has made 10 compliments towards the coach and has complimented the teacher 15 times for her organization and positive influence on all of the children. Other than stating compliments, Paul only speaks with the teacher and coach at proper times. Paul has never negatively confronted or embarrassed the coach or the teacher with complaints or critical suggestions. The boy has been late to practice and to school 1 time due to his grandmother’s death. When the boy arrives to practice/game as well as to school, he is always prepared to practice/play or to start class with the proper equipment and materials. Although the coach asks parents to arrive 5 minutes before the end of practice, Paul arrives 10 minutes before and sits patiently in his car until practice is over. He also does this when he picks his son up from school. Neither the teacher nor the coach has ever expressed any concerns with Paul. Paul has attended all 10 games except for 1, due to a business trip. When he attends the games, he usually sits in the middle of the stands. He has attended 9 of the 10 student teacher conferences, due to that same business trip. Some of the mothers and fathers of the players often set up activities for the families to mingle, such as picnics and open houses. Paul is always eager to volunteer his time and effort. Of the 10 activities, Paul volunteered for everyone, but has attended 9. Paul’s son’s teacher also sets up activities in order for the families to participate in the classroom, such as holiday parties and class plays. Paul has attended 9 of the 10 events and bought food that he donated for one occasion he missed. Paul continuously and consistently encourages and supports his son when he makes assists/goals and when he dose not. Paul acts in the same manner in regards to his son’s schoolwork. Paul has been heard stating on an average of 10 positive comments towards his son per game as well as an average of 11 positive remarks towards his son in the classroom. Paul’s son is a good soccer player and a good student. However, when Paul’s son does not perform to his son’s liking, Paul makes sure that he explains and rationalizes with his son about problems/questions that he may have. Paul never verbalizes negative statements or embarrasses his son during practices/games or school. Paul has verbalized constructive criticism in a positive and effective manner towards his son. Paul continually tells his son that he is there for him, and shows it with his involvement.

Diagnostic System 1 (Sport Setting)