parental discipline

8/13/2019 Parental Discipline

1/24

PARENTAL DISCIPLINE AND

PARENTS DESIRE FOR

CHILDRENS SCHOOL SUCCESS

Rachel Pasternak

ABSTRACT

Purpose This chapter presents a new model for the classification of

parental discipline styles (PDS), constructed in an attempt to understand

the relationship between parenting and childrens school success. The

model includes six PDSs, based on four criteria: making demands,

enforcement, punishment, and responsiveness to childrens requests.

Methodology Methodology includes quantitative research based on

self-report questionnaire.

Finding The findings indicate that (1) PDS has a crucial effect on a

childs academic achievement even after controlling for parents and

childrens demographic characteristics; (2) The progressive authoritative

style has the greatest effect on academic achievement, whereas the

punitive style has the smallest effect; and (3) punishment has a negative

effect on academic achievement, whereas responsiveness to childrens

requests has the greatest positive effect.

Economic Stress and the Family

Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Volume 6, 123146

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing LimitedAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1530-3535/doi:10.1108/S1530-3535(2012)0000006008

123
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_8/dx.doi.org/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_8/dx.doi.org/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_8/dx.doi.org/http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_8/dx.doi.org/


2/24

Originality/value PDS is distinguished from the broader conceptparenting style in its reference to the daily behaviors that comprise the

exercise of discipline.

Practical implications Awareness of the salience of discipline for

improving academic achievement can influence patterns of parenting in

general, and PDS in particular.

Social implications PDS indicates the quality of the education and

socialization being transmitted. It has a crucial impact on childrens

school success that is crucial for occupational and economic success.

Keywords: Parental discipline style; parenting styles; parental

authority; academic achievement; occupational success;

authoritative style

INTRODUCTION

Childrens school success has been the subject of intensive research in the

past two decades since academic achievements are necessary conditions

for professional standing and economic success. In a capitalist economy

that is based on a wide participation of citizens in the labor force, academic

credentials are both in the interest of individuals and of society. There is

evidence that academic achievements, even during childhood and adoles-

cence, are a key determinant of future occupational success (Dubow,

Boxer, & Huesmann, 2009;Flashman, 2012). International comparative test

results in science, mathematics, and reading comprehension, based onresponses from elementary school students, indicate mediocre achievement

among this age group in some Western democracies such as the United

States and the United Kingdom when compared with Far Eastern countries

such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan or Finland (PISA, 2011). These

data, which indicate a growing threat to sustaining a stable economy in

capitalist countries, have motivated research on ways in which to improve

childrens academic achievements. Although this issue represented the main

focus of research primarily by education and learning experts in the past,

current research is interdisciplinary in character, involving sociologists,economists, psychologists, and even philosophers. Scholars are now delving

into the sources for this situation as well as attempting to develop tools for

RACHEL PASTERNAK124


3/24

its reversal. One result of this change in direction is the increased attentionbeen paid to the family as a factor contributing to childrens school success.

The current chapter discusses parents contributions to childrens school

success from a perspective previously neglected in the literature. Parents are

considered as an agent of socialization and, in their ordinary practice, are

the subjects of acts of construction of the social and cultural reproduction

(Nash, 1990). This study examines the effect of what we call Parental

Discipline Style (PDS) on achievement, that is, it investigates whether

parental imposition of discipline as a part of the socialization process

supports their childrens learning. Our subject is positive discipline (Devall,2004), directed at the child within an educational process meant to prepare

the foundations for learning. We assume that the absence of positive

discipline undermines the childs proper functioning in school. It is worth

noting that positive discipline can be implemented in every family,

irrespective of its socioeconomic status.

Parenting Style and Discipline

The claim that parents play a meaningful role in the inculcation of discipline

and academic achievement as a valued goal has been intensively studied

under the rubric parenting style. parenting style is composed of a range

of components, including parents general behavior, much of which entails

the exercise of parental authority, interpreted here as the imposition of

discipline. A critical, analytical reading of the scores of studies examining

the influence of parenting style on childrens and adolescents education and

socialization indicates that parenting style is defined and measured by

several elements. An analysis of the components comprising the criteria fordetermining parenting style indicates their distribution into two main

categories. The first refers to family characteristics, expressed in the home

environment, parental involvement (Hickman, Greenwood, & Miller, 1995;

Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992) and family cohesion

(Hern & Lewko, 1994) as well as parental control, discipline strategies,

warmth, and authoritativeness (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &

Dornbusch, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lambon, &

Dornbusch, 1991). The second pertains to elements related to parental

behavior toward their children: parentchild interaction and communica-tion, emotional attachment to their children, and level of involvement in

their childrens lives. Taken together, these components represent aspects of

educating ones offspring.

Parental Discipline and Desire for Childrens School Success 125


4/24

Baumrind, whose research has inspired numerous studies, examined theparenting style according to components characterizing the exercise of

discipline but within a wide sphere of reference. Her research led to the

recognition of variation in parenting style according to the balance achieved

between measures of authoritativeness and those expressing warmth and

support. In her studies, Baumrind (1966, 1967, 1971, 1991) made use of

components such as authority, communication, control, and authoritative-

ness. She used the dimensions of control/demandingness (C) and warmth/

responsiveness (W) to derive a fourfold classification of parenting styles: the

authoritarian (high C, low W), the authoritative (high C, high W), thepermissive (low C, high W), and the neglecting (low C, low W).

In her later studies,Baumrind (1996, 2005)determined parenting style on

the basis of an imbalance in parents demandingness/responsiveness ratio.

Doing so allowed her to add four additional styles: authoritarian/directive,

nonauthoritarian/directive, democratic, and neglecting/rejecting. A review

of these styles indicates that the pivotal component determining parenting

style tends to be the demandingness/responsiveness ratio as expressed in

behavior. This means that the main components of parenting style tend to

be demandingness and responsiveness.The models constructed on the basis of Baumrinds research can be

differentiated by the degree of authoritativeness exercised by parents toward

their children. Research investigating the relationship between parenting

style and educational achievement has generally found a positive correlation

between authoritativeness and academic achievement (Baumrind, 1991;

Chao, 2001;Dornbusch, 1987;Hickman, Toews, & Andrews, 2001;Turner,

Chandler, & Heffer, 2009; Yang, 2009). Alternatively, the exercise of

excessive authority, as expressed in the Authoritarian style, has been found

to be negatively correlated with academic achievement (Baumrind, 1991;Dornbusch, 1987).

Parental Authority, Discipline, and Academic Achievement

Authority is the ability to impose discipline. As such, it is one of the tools at

the parents disposal when socializing and educating their children.

Historically, parental authority became the subject of empirical study

primarily after its deterioration (Baumrind, 2005;De Forest, 2009;Steutel &Spiecker, 2000).

The imposition of discipline on children is expressed by the ability to

place boundaries between the permitted and the prohibited, to inculcate

RACHEL PASTERNAK126


5/24

appropriate social behavior and learning habits. This imposition might havesome difficulties when parentchild relations become too liberal (Lee &

Tseng, 2008;Williamson, Bondy, Langley, & Mayne, 2005).

In the current research we distinguish this type of authority from that

exercised by teachers while focusing on the necessity of its exercise in the

education of children, the consolidation of self-identity (Berzonsky, 2004),

the internalization of discipline and mental health (Dwairy, 2004), the

legitimation of authority and its implications for parentchild conflicts

(Darling, Cumsille, & Pena-Alampay, 2005) as well as childrens attitudes

toward authority (Daddis, 2008; Smetana, 2000; Smetana, Crean, &Campione-Barr, 2005). Several of the studies that examined authority from

a cultural perspective have found that youngsters from societies as desperate

as that of the Chinese (Zhang & Fuligni, 2006), the Brazilian (Milnitsky-

Sapiro, Turiel, & Nucci, 2006), and the Vietnamese minority in the United

States (Nguyen, 2008) are dissatisfied with the broad scope of authority

wielded by their parents.

The Western worlds interest in the correlation between parental authority

and academic achievement was stimulated by international test results. One

explanation was the weakening of parental authority. Yet, despite the wealthof studies conducted with parental authority and its effect on children

in numerous spheres, the research literature was initially rather meager

with respect to academic achievement. The few studies conducted on the

subject did find a direct and positive correlation between parental authority

and academic achievement or motivation (Frey, Ruchkin, Martin, &

Schwab-Stone, 2009); its effect was in fact found to be stronger on home-

work completion among girls (Chan & Chan, 2007).

Baumrinds (1991, 2005) classic model, which has been studied in

numerous cultures, spawned the now burgeoning research on the impactof an authoritative parenting style on academic achievement. It is interesting

to note that an absolute majority of studies have found a significant and

positive correlation between the two sets of behavior in a broad assortment

of cultural groups: the Chinese (Pearson & Rao, 2003;Wei, Den, & Zhou,

2009), Afro-Americans (Mandara, 2006), and Caribbean immigrants to the

United States (Roopnarine, Krishnakumar, Metindogam, & Evans, 2006),

collectivist and individualist cultures (Sorkhabi, 2005) as well as students of

college age (Abar, Carter, & Winsler, 2009;Turner et al., 2009) and those

attending middle school (Suldo, Mihalas, Powell, & French, 2008). We cantherefore conclude that the exercise of authority over children contributes to

their academic achievement. This being said, the issue of whether authori-

tativeness is the only salient feature of parenting has remained open.



6/24

The positive and supportive role played by the exercise of authority inaffecting childrens achievements has raised questions as to the precise

character of those parental behaviors that express authority. Which parental

behaviors are included in the exercise of authority? What components of

parenting style determine the exercise of authority? Whereas authority is

defined as the parents power to dictate and model appropriate behavior,

discipline is defined as the practical, daily exercise of authority in the varied

spheres comprising childrens lives. The specification and analytic focus of

these activities is likely to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge

about the influence parents exert on their childrens education and learningpotential.

In the current research, the concept authority was conceptualized as

behavior that expresses the exercise of discipline. Instead of examining the

discipline as a component of parental authority or of an authoritative

parenting style, we focused on the concept PDS. PDS was distinguished

from the broader concept parenting style in its reference to the daily

behaviors that comprise the exercise of discipline. PDS was likewise based

on the components demandingness and responsiveness, but again, contrary

to parenting style, the component behaviors were directed solely at parentsattempts to inculcate discipline.

The concept PDS has received little attention in the literature. When

mentioned, the authors have generally referred to it as an overall parental

behavior aimed at imposing discipline rather than as a structured behavior

pattern culminating in parenting style (Gallagher & Cartwright-Hatton,

2008). In order to investigate this style, we constructed a new, targeted

questionnaire (the PDS questionnaire or PDSQ), based on available

questionnaires devised to identify the parenting style but with the addition

of new criteria as described below.

Parental Discipline Style and Its Components

As a concept, PDS relates to the approach taken by parents when imposing

discipline on their children. It refers to the degree to which parents exercise

their authority regarding the imposition of discipline and inculcation of

appropriate social behavior. We offer four new components comprising

this style: making demands, enforcing, punishing, and responsiveness to thechilds requests. These components were selected on the basis of theoretical

and empirical arguments originating in theories from the fields of education,

learning, and the sociology of education.

RACHEL PASTERNAK128


7/24

Two behavioral patterns requisite for good parenting support andcontrol have received particular stress (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).Control

is expressed in making demands, enforcing them, and punishing children for

failing to comply. These three components likewise represent the founda-

tions of learning and behavior formation as conceptualized by sociological

and behavioral theorists (Bandura, 1977; Pasternak, 2002; Rollins &

Thomas, 1979). Alternatively, support, as expressed in responsiveness to

the childs requests, represents an equilibrating component. Support causes

children to feel at ease and relaxed in relations with their parents, to be

readily accepted, and to effortlessly express their wishes and needs.Supportive behavior expresses warmth, sensitivity, and acceptance (Coplan,

Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, & Moulton, 2002;Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994).

The related empirical arguments evolved from the fact that these concepts

have already been researched as components of teacher and parent behavior

and correlated with academic achievement. We believe that the incorpora-

tion of the four components into one conceptual framework can facilitate

the modeling of parental behavior focused on the exercise of discipline,

that is, a PDS. We next describe these factors and their relationship to

discipline.

Making Demands

Making demands refers to the claims parents make on children to become

integrated into society, transmitted through behavior regulation, direct

confrontation and maturity demands (behavioral control) in addition to

supervision of childrens activities (monitoring) (Baumrind, 2005, p. 61).

Such behavior expresses the degree to which parents require that their

children complete a variety of the daily tasks deemed necessary for proper

socialization and learning. Making demands represents a key concept in theeducation field, although, beyond its inclusion as a component of parenting

style (Baumrind, 1991, 2005; Steinberg et al., 1991, 1994), it is usually

examined as either a distinct variable (Howland, Anderson, Smiley, &

Abbott, 2006) or as an educational policy (Kissel, 2009;Reback, 2008).

Enforcement

Enforcement relates to the degree to which parents effectively monitor

fulfillment of their demands. This component is especially important in theexercise of discipline because making demands is ineffective without it.

Enforcement has generally been investigated as a component of punishment

rather than as a distinct concept.



8/24

PunishmentPunishment and its effect on childrens normative behavior as well as

academic achievement have been widely discussed in the literature. This rich

body of research has focused on the punishment meted out by teachers and

its negative influence on academic achievement, especially in the form of

corporal punishment (Docan, 2006; Guskey, 2004; Little & Akin-Little,

2008). Alternatively, research on the effect of parental punishment is

relatively poor. We should note here that our subject is not corporal or

physical punishment but educational punishment, which includes denial of

rewards or gratifications (Devall, 2004).Sociological theories on the inculcation of social norms and the

acquisition of social roles and learning, such as behavior formation theories,

explain the emergence of behavioral patterns through reward (for good

behavior) and punishment (for deviant behavior) (Pasternak, 2002, 2003).

We therefore consider punishment to be a response to childrens

noncompliance with parental demands, expressed in the denial of rewards

such as watching television, access to computers, purchase of a desired

object, going out, and so forth. Although responsiveness appears in

Baumrinds (2005) model, she makes no mention of punishment. In orderto complete our analysis of PDS, we suggest focusing specifically on the

punishment due to its role in social learning as supported by theory.

Responsiveness to the Childs Requests

Responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents acquiesce to childrens

requests. Baumrind (1991, 2005) includes responsiveness in her model of

parenting style while stressing its sensitivity to the child and honoring his

or her requests, characteristics that bear witness to the parents warmth,

support of the childs autonomy, and reasoned communication. This parti-cular behavior, other than its inclusion as a component of parenting, is

rarely mentioned in the research literature. A wealth of research does exist

in reference to a broader concept, warmth (Bronstein-Burrows, 1981;

Meteyer & Perry-Jenkins, 2009; Shanahan, McHale, Crouter, & Osgood,

2007). We nonetheless argue that children need responsiveness; this quality

should therefore be included among the components of a PDS. Parental

responsiveness to the childs requests introduces reciprocity into parentchild

relations: responsiveness to a childs request provides a measure of

legitimation to parental demands at the same time that it helps imposediscipline. The message children receive is: I demand and expect you to

comply; at the same time, you request and I respond. For these

RACHEL PASTERNAK130


9/24


10/24

Participants

Participating in the research were 129 women from middle upper social

class, between the ages of 30 and 50 (most were aged 3545). We referred to

women since they are mostly more involved with the socialization process.

The majority (91%) were married and had acquired a high school or

academic education (about 85%). Among participants with an academic

education, the majority (91.5%) had earned at least a masters degree. The

women in the sample generally earned average or above-average incomes

(95.7%); the majority were Jewish (91.5%), with about half identifyingthemselves as secular (54%); a bit more than half were of European origin

(59.2%). The participants were asked to report about aspects of their

behavior toward those of their children who were in the 2nd to 6th grade

and aged 811 (about 85% of their children were in the 4th to 5th grade,

aged 811). The majority of these children were boys (57.4%); none were

reported as diagnosed for learning disabilities. If we compare this sample to

national-level statistics, we see that only 55.6% of the citizens are part of the

civilian labor force compared to Sweden (64%), Holland (65%), and United

States (66%) (Landa & Even, 2009). Also, in Israel, nearly 78.3% of thewomen are in the labor force (men, 77.7%), and they are better educated

than men in all the levels of education, and more than a third of them have

academic degrees. So, the sample is similar to more than a third of the

women in Israel (Statistical Abstract of Israel, 2011).

Participants were recruited by means of convenience (students 77.5%)

and snowball sampling (others 22.5%). The majority of the women

completed the questionnaire during a class session held in the academic

institution where they were students. Completion of the questionnaire was

voluntary and not part of the course requirements.

Data Collection

Data were collected over a period of three months. Each participant in the

research received a structured, anonymous self-completion questionnaire, to

be returned upon its completion. The questionnaire included items on PDS

in addition to items on their childrens educational achievements. The

mothers were given definition of each of these components in thequestionnaire. The sociodemographic portion of the questionnaire con-

tained items such as the childs gender, parental behavior, family income,

and so forth.

RACHEL PASTERNAK132


11/24

The response rate for the structured and anonymous self-completionquestionnaire was 90%.

The Research Variables and Their Measurement

The research focused on one main dependent variable: academic achieve-

ment. The data on academic achievement were collected by means of

mothers reports of their childrens grades for each of the four selected

subjects arithmetic, Hebrew language skills, English as a foreign language,and science as they appeared on report cards transmitted at the end of the

school year. (Grades are given on an annual basis in Israel.) The responses

were scored on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor mastery) to 4

(complete mastery), exactly as they appeared in the report cards. The

questionnaire was completed about a week after their transmission. These

variables were then coded as four dummy variables: mastery of a subject

(complete mastery and mastery, each of which received a value of 1) and no

mastery (partial and no mastery, each of which received a value of 0).

The Israeli education system is divided into three stages: primary school 1st to 6th grade, junior high 7th to 9th grade, and high school 10th to

12th grade. In so called good schools or in schools of the middle upper class,

parents are involved in school (Pasternak, 2004). The academic performance

in mathematics and science, as reflected in the scores achieved in inter-

national comparative tests such as PISA is not satisfactory. By 2009 Israel

was ranked 41st out of 64 in mathematics, 36th in reading comprehension

and reading, and 41st in science, with scores of 2049 points below the

average of all the countries participating in the Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) (PISA, 2011). These achievementsare a threat to the occupational possibilities and the economic situation

in Israel. Because of this situation, the Israeli government allocates a big

budget for reforms in order to improve the academic achievements.

The main independent variable, PDS, was measured by means of a

questionnaire specially developed by the author for the current research.

The questionnaire contained 40 items aimed to identify parents specific

PDS by means of the four behavioral components: making demands,

enforcement, punishment, and responsiveness to the childs requests. Ten

items were assigned to each dimension and described common behaviorstaken from the daily routines of children aged 811: brushing teeth,

washing, watching television, permitted computer time, coming home on

time, preparation of homework at fixed hours, arranging their room,



12/24

removing dishes from the table, taking down laundry, and politeness whenconversing with parents. The behaviors were selected on the basis of a pilot

study. Fifteen mothers (other than those participating in the research) of

children aged 811 were asked to list 15 daily behaviors that raised issues of

compliance. To prevent cultural bias (given that the research was conducted

in Israel) and ensure the questionnaires universality, three mothers each

were chosen from five countries: Israel, France, England, Canada, and the

United States. The mothers were randomly selected as part of a convenience

sample based on indirect acquaintance. Ten behaviors were selected from

the list compiled. The criterion for selection was a behaviors mention bymothers from at least three countries. The 129 mothers participating in the

research were asked to rank three of the four PDS components on separate

Likert scales: how often they made demands, ranging from 1 (never

demanded) to 5 (always demanded), their level of enforcement, ranging

from 1 (never enforced) to 5 (always enforced), and their level of punishment

(educational, not corporal) meted out for noncompliance, ranging from 1

(never punished) to 5 (always punished).

Ten items were then provided that expressed the fourth component,

responsiveness to their childrens requests: purchasing clothes, purchasingshoes, purchasing toys, purchasing games, purchasing other expensive items,

purchasing favorite foods, subscribing to a sports club (gym), trips abroad,

family outings, and release from chores. For each of these items, the

mothers were asked to describe their responses on a Likert scale ranging

from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Although some of these requests require

financial outlays, the majority of the mothers reported average or above-

average incomes, a fact that neutralized the potential socioeconomic bias.

Sociodemographic background data were collected in order to control for

their influence on the dependent variable and thus enable isolation of theeffect of PDS on the achievements. The data were obtained by means of

additional questions directed at the mothers age, childs gender, family

status (married/divorced, etc.), education, average family income, religios-

ity, nationality, and ethnicity. In addition to their childrens grades, parents

were asked whether their children had been diagnosed for learning

disabilities; if so, at what age and whether the child was receiving treatment.

(In Israel learning disabilities include a range of diagnoses such as ADHD,

ADS, Conduct disorder, and other mental disabilities); if so, at what age

and whether the child was receiving treatment. With the exception of age,which is a continuous variable, all the other responses were coded as dummy

variables: childs gender (1 male; 0 female); marital status (1married;

RACHEL PASTERNAK134


13/24

0

all others); education (1

academic; 0

non-academic); and religiosity(1observant; 0 secular).

Tools

The 58-item Questionnaire included 40 statements for the purpose of

identifying PDS, 5 questions regarding academic achievement, and 13

questions referring to intervening sociodemographic variables.

The empirical validity of the questionnaire was determined by means of aprinciple components analysis. This analysis indicated that each of the four

posited components of PDS obtained Eigenvalues of at least 1.0. making

demands was found to explain 86% of the variance with an internal

reliability coefficient ofa .98; enforcement was found to explain 84.6% of

the variance, with a .98; punishment explained about 87.7% of the

variance, with a .98; responsiveness explained about 72.4% of the

variance, with a .95. Total explained variance reached 86.4%.

Findings

The research was able to identify six PDSs: authoritarian, authoritative,

progressive authoritative, permissive, neglectful, and punitive. Four of these

styles Authoritarian, Authoritative, Permissive, and Neglectful are found

in the literature; the remaining two styles Progressive Authoritative and

Punitive are newly identified and represent an innovative contribution of

the research.

PDSs were found to be distinguished by different combinations of thefour posited components (i.e., making demands, enforcement, punishment,

and responding to the childs requests). Each parent in the sample was

assigned a standardized score for each of the four components based on the

PCA conducted earlier. Based on each components distribution, values for

high, medium, and low levels were calculated: making demands: low (.68

and below), medium (.67 to .76), and high (.77 and above); enforcement:

low (.62 and below), medium (.61 to .64), and high (.65 and above);

punishment: low (.37 and below), medium (.36 to .65), and high (.66 and

above); responsiveness: low (

.59 and below), medium (

.58 to .54), andhigh (.55 and above).Table 1describes the six PDSs in terms of the weights

of the four components.



14/24

Table 1 shows how the different PDSs diverge from one anotheraccording to the weight, or stress, given to each factor. For example, the

progressive authoritative style is distinguished from the Authoritarian style

by the stress placed on punishment; whereas the Authoritative style involves

making demands, enforcing those demands, responding to a childs request,

and inflicting severe punishment for infractions. Adoption of a progressive

authoritative style requires making high demands, enforcing them,

responding to the childs requests but inflicting only a good measure of

punishment. Table 1 also indicates the distribution of the various PDSs,

with the most common being Authoritative (33.3% of the sample), followedby, in descending order, Neglectful (17.8%), Authoritarian (14.7%),

Progressive Authoritative (13.2%), Punitive (11.6%), and Permissive

(4.7%).

A corollary hypothesis investigated (No. 1) was that PDS is correlated to

childrens achievement in a range of subjects.Table 2shows the distribution

of childrens level of mastery in the four subjects examined: arithmetic,

Hebrew language skills, English as a foreign language, and science for each

PDS.

Table 2 reveals a clear trend indicating that specific PDSs appear toincrease childrens chances for success in their studies. Among the six styles,

children of parents adopting the Authoritative and the Progressive

Authoritative PDSs show higher levels of mastery in every school subject

investigated. Children of parents adopting the Authoritarian style showed

partial success in all four subjects; in the majority of subjects, about one-

fourth of these children exhibited little or no mastery. It appears that two-

thirds of the children of parents adopting a Permissive or Neglectful style

did not achieve mastery in any of the subjects tested. The PDS associated

with least mastery of the subject matter was the punitive style: Between 73%and 93% of the children with parents adopting this style achieved no

Table 1. Parental Discipline Style Components.

Authoritarian Authoritative Progressive

Authoritative

Neglectful Permissive Punitive Total

Making

demands

High High High Low Low Low

Enforcement High High High Low Low LowPunishment High High Low Low Low High

Responsiveness Low High High Low High Low

% of sample 14.7% 33.3% 4.7% 17.8% 13.2% 11.6% 100%

RACHEL PASTERNAK136


15/24

Table 2. Distribution of Childs Level of Mastery in the Four Subjects for

Subject Parental Discipline Style

Authoritarian

(n19)

Authoritative

(n43)

Permissive

(n6)

Neglectful

(n23)

B.P. G.P. B.P. G.P. B.P. G.P. B.P. G.P.

Arithmetic 31.6% 68.4% 0% 100% 66.7% 33.3% 65.2% 34.8%

English as a foreign

language

26.3% 73.7% 3% 97.7% 66.7% 33.3% 52.2% 47.8%

Science 21.1% 78.9% 0% 100% 83.3% 16.7% 69.6% 30.4%

Hebrew language skills 26.3% 73.7% 0% 100% 83.3% 16.7% 34.8% 65.2%

Note: pr.05; pr.01.

B.P., Low mastery; G.P., High mastery.


16/24

mastery in arithmetic, English as a foreign language, or science, whereasonly about 50% achieved mastery over Hebrew language skills. The data

shown inTable 3support these findings.

In order to identify which of the four components of PDS (making

demands, enforcement, punishment, and responsiveness to requests) best

explains a childs achievement in each of the subjects examined while

controlling for sociodemographic or background variables, we performed a

linear regression analysis for each academic subject separately. The

regression model included sociodemographic variables together with the

four components of PDS. Calculation of the regression was performed inorder to (1) assess the contribution of each PDS to the prediction of

academic achievement while controlling the contribution made by socio-

demographic variables, and (2) estimate the contributions of each socio-

demographic variable as compared with the contributions of the

components of PDS to predicting achievement in each subject. The results

of the linear regression analysis can be seen inTable 3.

The results of the regression analysis indicated that the predictive power

of the model was relatively strong for arithmetic (55.7%), science (60.3%),

and English as a foreign language (45%) but relatively weak for Hebrewlanguage skills (32.2%). That is, we found that three of the four components

of PDS do affect achievement in each subject beyond the effect exerted by

parental background variables. Responsiveness was found to be the only

component affecting achievement in all four academic subjects: arithmetic

(b .313), English (b .259), language (b .225), and science (b .277).

Alternatively, punishment had no predictive value regarding success in the

four subjects tested. This finding supports previous results indicating that

children of parents adopting a punitive style achieve the least in all school

subjects.The other two components had a range of effects on achievement, by

academic subject: enforcement had a positive effect on achievement in

English (b .497) and science (b .469), while making demands had a

positive effect on achievement in arithmetic (b .146) and the Hebrew

language (b .491). The findings confirm the second research hypothesis.

An additional interesting finding obtained by the regression analysis is the

very poor contribution of the social-demographic variables to the explained

variance. The sociodemographic variables contributed a significant effect

only in the model predicting achievement in arithmetic (Religiosity: b

.16;Education: b .146). These findings appear to support the argument that

PDS components have a greater effect on achievement than do socio-

demographic variables. Stated differently, after controlling for background,

RACHEL PASTERNAK138


17/24

Table 3. Predicting Academic Achievement: Regression Analys

Variable Arithmetic English Hebrew Langu

B SE

B

b B SE

B

b B SE

B

Parents age .03 .07 .03 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01

Family status .08 .06 .08 .02 .07 .02 .02 .07

Religiosity .14 .05 .16 .08 .06 .09 .00 .06

Ethnicity .11 .06 .12 .02 .07 .02 .13 .07

Childs gender .14 .06 .02 .05 .07 .00 .08 .07

Education .20 .06 .14 .02 .07 .06 .20 .07

Requirements .04 .08 .44 .22 .09 .05 .04 .09

Enforcement .02 .04 .01 .05 .05 .49 .01 .05

Punishment .14 .03 .01 .11 .04 .12 .09 .04

Responsiveness .03 .00 .31 .00 .01 .26 .00 .01

F 16.57 10.79 6.29

% of explained variance 55.7 45 32.2

Note:

pr.05;

pr.01.


18/24

PDS components had a significant effect on academic achievement in allfour subjects. Those findings also confirm the third research hypothesis.

We can therefore conclude that the research findings confirm all three

research hypotheses.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This research has shed additional light on the concept PDS by describing six

such styles, each of which was differentiated according to four components:making demands, enforcement of demands, punishment for noncompliance

with those demands, and responsiveness to a childs request. These

components were constructed on the basis of behaviors commonly observed

among children aged 811. The research found that PDS does indeed exert a

meaningful influence on childrens academic achievements beyond what can

be explained by sociodemographic background variables such as the

mothers education, family income, ethnic origin, and the childs gender.

The research hypotheses, that were all confirmed by the data, are also

outgrowths of the two theories sociological and learningbehaviorformation (Bandura, 1977; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Pasternak, 2002,

2003; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). The PDS found to contribute the most to

academic achievement was the progressive authoritative style, which

involves high levels of making demands, enforcement as well as respon-

siveness to a childs request, together with low levels of punishment. The

influence of this parenting style fits the theory on the inculcation of social

norms and social roles through rewards for good behavior and punishment

for deviant behavior (Pasternak, 2002, 2003). This finding somewhat deviates

from that commonly found in the research literature on parenting styles(Abar, Carter, & Winsler, 2009; Suldo et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2009).

Whereas the Authoritative style was previously considered to have the

greatest influence on achievement (Baumrind, 1991;Chao, 2001;Dornbusch,

1987; Hickman et al., 2001; Turner et al., 2009; Yang, 2009), the current

research identified an essentially new style, that of the progressive authori-

tative style, which represents a specific combination of components belonging

to the broader category of PDS. We can therefore conclude that high levels of

punishment do not contribute to a childs success in school. This finding

supports the findings obtained in the research on punishment in the educationsystem (Docan, 2006;Guskey, 2004;Little & Akin-Little, 2008).

The Authoritative style was also found to contribute to academic

achievement although less so than did the progressive authoritative style.

RACHEL PASTERNAK140


19/24

The Permissive, like the Neglectful PDS, contributed little to a childsachievement, with the clear majority (about two-thirds) of the children with

parents practicing this parenting style demonstrating low levels of academic

success. The punitive style, which entails high levels of punishment,

contributed least to success in school, with the majority of children of such

parents failing to show any mastery in any subject area. These findings

likewise support the main research hypothesis.

The corollary hypothesis was also confirmed: The greatest impact of PDS

was observed in arithmetic; the most influential component has been making

demands. It appears that the higher the level of demands made, the greaterthe academic achievement the child will attain. Arithmetic is a subject that

demands control, practice, and the preparation of homework; parents play a

central role in motivating young children aged 811 to complete these tasks.

Importantly, the findings indicated that this influence was not affected by

the childs gender.

Based on these findings, we can now reach a number of conclusions about

the relationship between childrens academic achievements and parental

behavior as expressed in PDS.

First, high levels of punishment clearly do not support childrensacademic achievement. Parents tend to think that they can force children

to invest in their studies through punitive actions. The findings indicate that

such behavior is superfluous or ineffectual. A polar behavior, responsiveness

to a childs request during childhood, appears to be the component

contributing most to creating a positive relationship between parents and

children while inspiring children to succeed in their studies.

Second, making demands of children is necessary for childrens success in

school. Its effect is felt most strongly in the acquisition of arithmetic and

Hebrew language skills. When few demands are made, such as in thePermissive and the Neglectful styles, very low levels of academic achieve-

ment can be anticipated.

Third, enforcement of the demands was the parental behavior found to

contribute to achievement especially in English as a foreign language and in

science.

The findings therefore do support the theoretical argument underlying

the research. Parents do exert a meaningful influence on their childrens

success in school. Our research corroborates the literature in showing

that one of the crucial factors in this process is what we have called PDS, abroader pattern of behavior including components such as making demands,

enforcing demands, punishing, and responding to a childs request. Import-

antly, it is the different combinations of these four components that



20/24

structure the various PDSs and influence childrens achievements in theindicated directions. For instance, we found that about 61% of the parents

in our sample made high demands but also strictly enforced those demands,

while about 60% inflicted punishment and about 50% responded to their

childrens requests. making demands, enforcing them, and responding to a

childs request were found to be the most meaningful and statistically

significant variables. Nonetheless, the determining factor for academic

achievement was the degree to which each of these components was

expressed in behavior.

These results deserve special attention because they are based oninformation submitted by parents (mothers in the current research)

themselves. Although it could be argued that the mothers participating in

the research geared their responses to the researchers expectations because

they were anxious to be socially acceptable, we would respond that such

motivation may have influenced the strength of the reported behaviors but

not the trends themselves or their direction.

However, the results of this study should be regarded with caution. The

families were well educated and had middle to high incomes. Thus,

extrapolating from these results and conclusions to other social-culturalcontexts may be limited. On the basis of these limitations, future studies are

recommended, such as referring to younger children or teenagers, fathers,

and families from different levels of income and education.

The research findings also have practical implications. Awareness of the

salience of discipline for improving academic achievement can influence

patterns of parenting in general, and PDS in particular. When viewed from a

broader social perspective, we can conclude that PDS indicates the quality

of the education and socialization being transmitted; hence, it has a crucial

impact on childrens school success that is crucial for occupational andeconomic success.

REFERENCES

Abar, B., Carter, K. L., & Winsler, A. (2009). The effects of maternal parenting style and

religious commitment on self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among

African-American parochial college students.Journal of Adolescence,32(2), 259273.

Bandura, A. (1977).Social learning theory. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child

Development, 37(4), 887907.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.

Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 4388.

RACHEL PASTERNAK142


21/24


22/24

Guskey, T. R. (2004). Are zeros your ultimate weapon? Education Digest: Essential ReadingsCondensed for Quick Review, 70(3), 3135.

Hern, C., & Lewko, J. H. (1994). Gender differences in factors related to parenting style:

A study of high performance science students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9,

262281.

Hickman, C. W., Greenwood, G., & Miller, M. D. (1995). High school parent involvement:

Relationships with achievement, grade level, SES and gender. Journal of Research and

Development in Education, 28, 125134.

Hickman, G. P., Toews, M. L., & Andrews, D. W. (2001). The differential influence of

authoritative parenting on the initial adjustment of male and female traditional college

freshmen.Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 13(1), 2346.

Howland, A., Anderson, J. A., Smiley, A. D., & Abbott, D. J. (2006). School liaisons: Bridgingthe gap between home and school. The School Community Journal, 16(2), 4768.

Kissel, A. (2009). Wasting away: Chicagos declining core. Academic Questions,22(3), 298313.

Landa, B., & Even, S. (2009). The Israeli economy in the era of globalization: Strategic

implications. Israel: INSS, The Institute for National Studies, Tel-Aviv University.

Lee, I. F., & Tseng, C. L. (2008). Cultural conflicts of the child-centered approach to early

childhood education in Taiwan. An International Journal of Research and Development,

28(2), 183196.

Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Psychologys contributions to classroom management.

Psychology in Schools, 45(3), 227234.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In (4th ed., pp. 1101 P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbookof child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1101).

New York, NY: Wiley.

Mandara, J. (2006). The impact of family functioning on African American males academic

achievement: A review and clarification of the empirical literature. Teacher College

Record, 108(2), 206223.

Meteyer, K. B., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2009). Dyadic parenting and childrens externalizing

symptoms.Family Relation, 58(3), 289302.

Milnitsky-Sapiro, C., Turiel, E., & Nucci, L. (2006). Brazilian adolescents conceptions of

autonomy and parental authority. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 317331.

Nash, R. (1990). Bourdieu on education and social and cultural reproduction.British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 11(4), 431447.

Nguyen, P. V. (2008). Perceptions of Vietnamese fathers acculturation levels, parenting styles

and mental health outcomes in Vietnamese American adolescents. Social Work, 53(4),

337346.

Pasternak, R. (2002). The first circle. Tel Aviv: Eitav (in Hebrew).

Pasternak, R. (2003). The family as an educator. In R. Pasternak (Ed.),Sociology of education:

Selected issues(Vol. 7, pp. 202252). Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel (in Hebrew).

Pasternak, R. (2004). The concept of community in education. In R. Pasternak (Ed.), Sociology

ofeducation: Selected issues (Vol. 4, pp. 269342) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: The Open

University of Israel.

Pearson, E., & Rao, N. (2003). Socialization goals, parental practices and peer competence

in Chinese and English preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 173(1),

131146.

PISA. (2011). Data analysis manual: SPSS(2nd ed.). New York, NY.

RACHEL PASTERNAK144


23/24

Reback, R. (2008). Demand (and supply) in an inter-district public school choice program.Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 402416.

Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in the

socialization of children. In W. R. Burre, R. Hill, F. I. Nye & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),

Contemporary theories about the family: Research-based theories (pp. 317364). New

York, NY: Free Press.

Roopnarine, J. L., Krishnakumar, A., Metindogam, A., & Evans, M. (2006). Links between

parental styles, parent-child academic interaction, parent-school interaction and early

academic skills and social behaviors in young children of English-speaking Caribbean

immigrants.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 238252.

Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in

nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 5574.Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Osgood, D. W. (2007). Warmth with mothers

and fathers from middle childhood to late adolescence: Within- and between-family

comparisons.Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 551563.

Smetana, J. (2000). Middle-class African-American adolescents and parents conceptions of

parental authority and parenting practices: A longitudinal investigation. Child

Development, 71(6), 16721686.

Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents and parents changing

conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,

108, 3146.

Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrinds parent typology to collective cultures:

Analysis of cultural explanations of parent socialization effects. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 29(6), 552563.

Statistical Abstract of Israel. (2011). Statistical Abstract of Israel(Vol. 62, p. 554). Jerusalem,

Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics.

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,

754770.

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, 12661281.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lambon, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative

parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research

on Adolescents, 1, 1936.

Steutel, J., & Spiecker, B. (2000). Authority in educational relationships. Journal of Moral

Education, 29(3), 323337.

Suldo, S. M., Mihalas, S., Powell, H., & French, R. (2008). Ecological predictors of substance

use in middle school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(3), 373388.

Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles,

achievement motivation and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students.

Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 337346.

Wei, M., Den, B., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Teacher interpersonal behaviour and student achievement

in English as a foreign language classrooms in China. Learning Environments Research,

12(3), 157174.



24/24

Williamson, P., Bondy, E., Langley, L., & Mayne, D. (2005). Meeting the challenge of high-stakes testing while remaining child-centered: The representations of two urban teachers.

Childhood Education, 81(4), 190196.

Yang, K. W. (2009). Discipline or punish? Some suggestions for school policy and teacher

practice.Language Arts, 87(1), 4961.

Zhang, W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Authority, autonomy and family relationships among

adolescents in urban and rural China. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(4),

527537.

RACHEL PASTERNAK146

parental discipline

Documents