parenting beliefs, parental stress, and social support relationships

9
ORIGINAL PAPER Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships Melissa Respler-Herman Barbara A. Mowder Anastasia E. Yasik Renee Shamah Published online: 2 February 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract The present study built on prior research by examining the relationship of parental stress and social support to parenting beliefs and behaviors. A sample of 87 parents provided their views concerning the importance of parenting characteristics as well as their level of parental stress and perceived social support. These parents completed the Parent Behavior Importance Questionnaire-Revised, as well as the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Results reveal that, in general, less parenting stress was related to more positive parenting perceptions and more parenting stress was related to less positive parenting per- ceptions. Perceived social support was not found to moderate the relationship between parenting stress and parenting perceptions. This study extends prior research regarding parenting in relation to stress by adding the dimension of social support. There are substantial implications for parent education, professional practice, and research. Keywords Parenting Á Parent role Á Parenting stress Á Parent support Á Parent education Introduction Present-day psychologists often identify parenting as an important part of children’s growth and development (Bornstein and Bradley 2003; Magnuson and Duncan 2004). Parenting decisions affect the way in which children develop and result in various positive and negative out- comes. Parents’ behaviors about parenting are generally consistent with their parenting beliefs (Mowder 2005). Additionally, there are many determinants that influence parenting ideas and practices (Belsky 1984). Parental stress and social support are all factors potentially influencing parenting (Belsky 1984; Simons et al. 1993a, b). Belsky (1984) proposed a model regarding the deter- minants of parenting. He described three fundamental parenting domains which contribute to successful parent- ing: (1) parent contributions, which are defined as parents’ personal psychological resources; (2) child contributions, which are defined as the child’s characteristics; and (3) contextual sources of stress and support, which are defined as the broader social context in which the parent-infant relationship is established. Although changes in any of the three domains impact parent functioning, parent contribu- tion is recognized as the most successful parent–child relationship buffer from stress. According to this model, psychological stress can affect parenting behaviors. Mowder (1993) posited that individuals learn about par- enting throughout their own childhood and their perceptions are not only influenced by their own developmental experi- ences, changes and needs, but when becoming a parent, by the changing and growing needs of their developing child. Additionally, parenting cognitions undergo change over the life span because of individuals’ own experiences as well as individuals’ personality, education and other factors. The parent development theory (PDT) states that parenting lar- gely encompasses six dimensions (i.e., bonding, discipline, education, general welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity) (Mowder 2005) that vary in importance according to children’s different developmental stages. For instance, the way in which an individual parents an infant is to some degree different than parenting an adolescent. M. Respler-Herman Á B. A. Mowder Á A. E. Yasik Á R. Shamah (&) Department of Psychology, Pace University, One Pace Plaza, New York, NY 10038, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198 DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9462-3

Upload: melissa-respler-herman

Post on 26-Aug-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

ORIGINAL PAPER

Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social SupportRelationships

Melissa Respler-Herman • Barbara A. Mowder •

Anastasia E. Yasik • Renee Shamah

Published online: 2 February 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The present study built on prior research by

examining the relationship of parental stress and social

support to parenting beliefs and behaviors. A sample of 87

parents provided their views concerning the importance of

parenting characteristics as well as their level of parental

stress and perceived social support. These parents completed

the Parent Behavior Importance Questionnaire-Revised, as

well as the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, and the

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.

Results reveal that, in general, less parenting stress was

related to more positive parenting perceptions and more

parenting stress was related to less positive parenting per-

ceptions. Perceived social support was not found to moderate

the relationship between parenting stress and parenting

perceptions. This study extends prior research regarding

parenting in relation to stress by adding the dimension of

social support. There are substantial implications for parent

education, professional practice, and research.

Keywords Parenting � Parent role � Parenting stress �Parent support � Parent education

Introduction

Present-day psychologists often identify parenting as an

important part of children’s growth and development

(Bornstein and Bradley 2003; Magnuson and Duncan

2004). Parenting decisions affect the way in which children

develop and result in various positive and negative out-

comes. Parents’ behaviors about parenting are generally

consistent with their parenting beliefs (Mowder 2005).

Additionally, there are many determinants that influence

parenting ideas and practices (Belsky 1984). Parental stress

and social support are all factors potentially influencing

parenting (Belsky 1984; Simons et al. 1993a, b).

Belsky (1984) proposed a model regarding the deter-

minants of parenting. He described three fundamental

parenting domains which contribute to successful parent-

ing: (1) parent contributions, which are defined as parents’

personal psychological resources; (2) child contributions,

which are defined as the child’s characteristics; and (3)

contextual sources of stress and support, which are defined

as the broader social context in which the parent-infant

relationship is established. Although changes in any of the

three domains impact parent functioning, parent contribu-

tion is recognized as the most successful parent–child

relationship buffer from stress. According to this model,

psychological stress can affect parenting behaviors.

Mowder (1993) posited that individuals learn about par-

enting throughout their own childhood and their perceptions

are not only influenced by their own developmental experi-

ences, changes and needs, but when becoming a parent, by

the changing and growing needs of their developing child.

Additionally, parenting cognitions undergo change over the

life span because of individuals’ own experiences as well as

individuals’ personality, education and other factors. The

parent development theory (PDT) states that parenting lar-

gely encompasses six dimensions (i.e., bonding, discipline,

education, general welfare and protection, responsivity,

sensitivity) (Mowder 2005) that vary in importance

according to children’s different developmental stages. For

instance, the way in which an individual parents an infant is

to some degree different than parenting an adolescent.

M. Respler-Herman � B. A. Mowder � A. E. Yasik �R. Shamah (&)

Department of Psychology, Pace University, One Pace Plaza,

New York, NY 10038, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198

DOI 10.1007/s10826-011-9462-3

Page 2: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

There is a recent movement to ascertain and describe the

determinants of parenting. Steinberg (2001) identified

factors in parents’ lives that enable warmth and monitoring,

including contextual influences such as social support. The

family context has been established as a significant con-

tributing factor in the socialization of children (Collins

et al. 2000; Maccoby and Martin 1983). There is a wide-

spread belief that parenting beliefs and practices are mul-

tiply determined since many issues influence parenting

(Raikes and Thompson 2005; Simons et al. 1993a). For

instance, parental stress and perceived social support each

individually influence parenting (Cairney et al. 2003;

Degarmo et al. 2008; Sepa et al. 2004; Simons et al.

1993b), with high levels of parenting stress ultimately

leading to undesirable outcomes for children (Duncan and

Brooks-Gunn 2000; Sepa et al. 2004).

Greater social support is likely to positively impact

parenting (Bonds et al. 2002; DeGarmo et al. 2008; Green

et al. 2007). For example, Gage and Christensen (1991)

state that the degree of social support mothers perceive is

significant in reducing stress. Additionally, Levy-Shiff

et al. (1998) report that women who perceive more social

support are less distressed in the mother role. Ostberg and

Hagekull (2000) found that parents with high social support

tended to experience low levels of parenting stress, which

leads to more positive and effectual parenting. There is

controversy over whether social support has a direct effect

on parenting behavior or is a buffer for stressors, which

influences parenting behaviors (Zimet et al. 1988).

Furthermore, parental stress and perceived social sup-

port might also have a cumulative influence on parenting

(Ostberg and Hagekull 2000). That is, parents who perceive

having social support may feel reduced parental stress,

resulting in more positive parenting behaviors than parents

who do not perceive having social support. This means that

social support may buffer the harmful effects of parental

stress on parenting behaviors. Therefore, this research

study investigates parenting in relation to parental stress

and social support. The specific research questions are as

follows: (1) Are parental stress and social support related to

parenting beliefs regarding the importance of parenting

behaviors? (2) Does social support moderate the relation-

ship between parental stress and parenting beliefs regard-

ing the importance of parenting behaviors?

Method

Participants

There were 87 parents of pre-school and elementary school

students used in this study. The participants were from

private, small schools in suburban areas on the east coast.

The participants were generally upper middle class. Of the

participants, the majority (97.7%) identified themselves as

parents, 1.1% self-identified as a step-parent and 1.1% self-

identified as other. The sample (N = 87) was 74.7%

female and 24.1% male; 1.1% of the respondents did not

respond to this item. The parents’ ages were obtained in

ranges and were as follows: 14.9% were between 20 and

29, 35.6% were between 30 and 39, 41.4% were between

40 and 49, 5.7% were between 50 and 59, and 2.3% were

over 60 years old. With regard to ethnic background, the

sample self-identified as predominantly Caucasian (92%),

with 2.3% self-identified as African American/Black, 2.3%

Hispanic/Latino, 2.3% reported as multi-ethnic, and 1.1%

did not respond to this item.

Some of the parents had only one child, however, if

parents had more than one child, they were requested to

select one child about whom they would be referring to

when responding to the questionnaire and respond

accordingly. The mean number of children per parent was

2.6 (SD = 1.07). The parents reported that 50.6% (n = 44)

of the children were female and 48.3% (n = 42) were male

with a mean age of 6.8 years (SD = 3.15 years); 1.1%

(n = 1) of the respondents did not indicate whether their

child was male or female. Concerning special education

needs, 93.1% of the children were not classified as having

special needs, 3.4% were classified as having special needs,

and 3.4% of the parents did not respond to this item.

Materials

Parenting Beliefs

Parent Behavior Importance Questionnaire-Revised (PBIQ-

R), a revised version of the PBIQ (Mowder 2000), was used

to assess parenting beliefs regarding the importance of par-

enting behaviors, specifically, the seven domains of bonding,

discipline, education, general welfare and protection,

responsivity, sensitivity and negativity. The PBIQ-R, used in

this research, is comprised of 76 items. A 5-point Likert-type

scale is used for the ratings (0 = Not at all Important,

1 = Somewhat Important, 2 = Important, 3 = Very

Important, 4 = Extremely Important). Each of the seven

parenting domains is totaled to provide a score, with lower

scores indicating lower importance. For the bonding, disci-

pline, education, general welfare and protection, respon-

sivity, and sensitivity (i.e., the six positive domains), low

importance is indicative of less positive parenting behaviors.

For negativity, low importance is indicative of more positive

parenting behaviors. High total scores on the six positive

domains as well as low scores on negativity are indicative of

more positive parenting behaviors. Each item represents a

parenting behavior associated with one, and in some of the

positive domains, two of the six subscales.

J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198 191

123

Page 3: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

Examples of an item from each subscale are as follows:

Bonding (e.g., ‘‘Doing things with your child at home’’),

Discipline (e.g., ‘‘Giving explanations about rules and

behavior’’), Education (e.g., ‘‘Reading to your child’’),

General welfare and protection (e.g., ‘‘Keeping your child

in a safe place’’), Responsivity (e.g., ‘‘Responding appro-

priately to your child’’), Sensitivity (e.g., ‘‘Matching your

responses to your child’s needs’’), and Negativity (e.g.,

‘‘Paying no attention to your child’’).

The overall test–retest reliability for the PBIQ-R is .95

(Mowder and Sanders 2008). The internal consistency for

the total positive PBIQ-R, as measured by Cronbach’s

alpha, is .96. The subscales’ internal consistency, using

alpha levels, are as follows: Bonding = .88, Disci-

pline = .76, Education = .86, General welfare and pro-

tection = .84, Responsivity = .87, Sensitivity = .87 and

Negativity = .86. The subscales’ reliabilities in the current

sample, using alphas, were as follows: Bonding = .86,

Discipline = .70, Education = .82, General welfare and

protection = .86, Responsivity = .88, Sensitivity = .84

and Negativity = .70. The reliability of the positive sub-

scale was .95.

Parenting Stress

The Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) (Abidin

1995) was used to measure parenting stress. The PSI-SF

consists of 36 items derived from the 101-item original

Parenting Stress Index. The PSI-SF is a 5-point Likert-type

scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Not Sure,

4 = Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Disagree). In order to

score the scale, each item is reverse scored (i.e., 5 = 1,

4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). All of the scores are then

added together to obtain a total score. Once a total score is

obtained, high scores indicate high parenting stress and low

scores indicate low parenting stress.

The PSI-SF has the following three subscales: Paren-

tal Distress (PD), Parent-Child Dysfunction Interaction

(P-CDI), and Difficult Child (DC), with 12 items in each

subscale. The PD subscale yields a score that denotes level

of distress stemming from personal factors such as

depression or discord with a partner and from life restric-

tions because of the demands of child rearing. Examples

from this subscale are ‘‘feel that I cannot handle things,’’

and ‘‘never able to do things that I like to do.’’ The P-CDI

subscale indicates parents’ dissatisfaction with interactions

with their children and the extent to which parents find

their children unacceptable. An example from this subscale

would be ‘‘getting child to do something is hard.’’ The DC

subscale assesses parents’ perceptions of their children’s

self-regulatory abilities. Examples from this subscale are

‘‘child gets upset easily,’’ and ‘‘child’s sleeping or eating

schedule is hard to establish.’’ The PSI-SF also includes a

Defensive Responding (DEF) scale (seven items from the

Parental Distress subscale) that provides an indication of

the degree to which the parent may be trying to deny or

minimize problems.

Abidin (1995) reports reliabilities of .91 for the total

scale and .87, .80, and .85, respectively for the PD, PCDI,

and DC. The PSI-SF demonstrated concurrent validity

(r = .94, p \ .0001) with the long form of the PSI. Co-

peland and Harbaugh (2005) found reliabilities of .92 for

the total scale, .87 for the PD subscale, .86 for the P-CDI

subscale, .85 for the DC subscale and .80 for the DEF

subscale. Reliability for all of the subscales in the current

sample was as follows: Total Scale = .91, PD = .83,

P-CDI = .85, and DC = .86.

Perceived Social Support

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

(MSPSS) was used to measure participants’ perceptions of

social support from three specific sources: family, friends,

and significant other (Zimet et al. 1988). The MSPSS is a

12-item scale that uses a 7-point Likert-style response

format (1 = Very Strongly Disagree, 2 = Strongly Dis-

agree, 3 = Mildly Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Mildly

Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree, and 7 = Very Strongly Agree)

to increase response variability and minimize a ceiling

effect (Zimet et al. 1988). All of the items are added to

obtain a total score. Higher scores indicate higher percep-

tions of social support and lower scores indicate lower

perceptions of social support.

There are three subscales (i.e., Family, Friends, Signif-

icant Other) and each is assessed with four items. An

example from the Family subscale is, ‘‘I get the emotional

help and support I need from my family.’’ Examples from

the Friends subscale are, ‘‘My friends really try to help

me,’’ and ‘‘I can count on my friends when things go

wrong.’’ Examples from the Significant Other subscale are,

‘‘There is a special person in my life who cares about my

feelings,’’ and ‘‘There is a special person who is around

when I am in need.’’

Cronbach’s alpha was obtained for the scale as a whole as

well as for each subscale. For the Significant Other, Family

and Friends subscales the values were .91, .87 and .85,

respectively. The reliability of the total scale was .88. The

test–retest reliability (2–3 months after initially completing

the questionnaire) for the Significant Other, Family and

Friends subscales were .72, .85 and .75, respectively. The

total scale yielded a value of .85. Thus, the MSPSS demon-

strated good internal reliability and adequate temporal sta-

bility. Strong factorial validity and moderate construct

validity were also demonstrated (Zimet et al. 1988).

Canty-Mitchell and Zimet (2000) conducted a study

with urban adolescents and found that urban adolescents

192 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198

123

Page 4: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

were able to differentiate between the three sources of

support (i.e., between significant other, family and friends)

in the MSPSS. Their results indicated that MSPSS scale as

well as the subscales have good internal consistency

overall and across race and gender subgroups in their urban

adolescent sample. They found a Cronbach’s coefficient

alpha of .93 for the total scale and .91, .89 and .91 for the

Significant Other, Family and Friends subscales, respec-

tively. In the current sample, the reliabilities were .97, .94,

and .96 for the Significant Other, Family and Friends

subscales, respectively.

Procedure

Permission to carry out this research was obtained from

Pace University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) as well

as from the two schools used in this study. The question-

naires, in addition to a short introduction to the research as

well as detailed instructions on how to fill out the scales,

were given to parents by the researcher at school functions,

parent–teacher conferences, and when parents came to drop

off/pick up their children from school. Additionally, some

of these materials were sent home to parents. In these

cases, parents were instructed to leave the envelope with

the school’s respective principal. This procedure was

selected to increase response rate and ensure that there was

no cost for the participant.

There were 165 questionnaires distributed and 102

questionnaires were returned to the researcher, for a

response rate of 61.8%. Six of the questionnaires were

excluded due to excessive missing data (i.e., more than one

item missing from any subscale). Additionally, because

only 9 out of 96 respondents were not married, these cases

were deleted from the analysis since 9 respondents did not

constitute an adequate sample to compare to 87 respon-

dents. Furthermore, because the groups (i.e., married vs.

single/divorced/separated) could not be compared and

would be combined, the data obtained from non-married

respondents could possibly skew the data. Therefore, those

nine non-married individuals were not included in the

analysis. Finally, mean substitution was used to fill in

missing data when only one item was missing from any of

the subscales (Raaijmakers 1999).

Results

The relationship between parenting beliefs, parental stress,

and social support was investigated and the results are

described in detail. A significance value of .05 was used as

a criterion for significance. Descriptive statistics of the

scales can be found in Table 1.

As noted earlier, the PBIQ-R’s subscale items were

rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (i.e.,

Not at all Important) to 4 (i.e., Extremely Important). Each

subscale was totaled and higher total scores on bonding,

discipline, education, general welfare, responsivity, and

sensitivity, individually as well as taken as a whole, and

lower scores on negativity, were indicative of more posi-

tive parenting behaviors. The ranges for each subscale can

be found in Table 1.

The PSI-SF was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale,

ranging from 1 (i.e., Strongly Agree) to 5 (i.e., Strongly

Disagree); each item is reverse scored (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2,

3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). All of the items are then added

together to form a total parenting stress score; high total

parenting stress scores indicate high parenting stress and

low total parenting stress scores indicate low parenting

stress. For the analyses, the total PSI-SF scores were uti-

lized instead of examining the subscales because this

research focused on parenting stress as a whole. Further-

more, it was thought that in a sample size of 87, the total

score would be more reliable. The range for the subscales

and total parenting stress scores can be found in Table 1.

The MSPSS was rated on a 7-point Likert-style response

format, ranging from 1 (i.e., Very Strongly Disagree) to 7

(i.e., Very Strongly Agree). All of the items are added to

form a total social support score, where higher scores

indicate higher perceptions of social support and lower

scores indicate lower perceptions of social support. For the

analyses in this study, the total MSPSS scores were utilized

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for parent measures

Measure Range M SD

PBIQ-R

Bonding 29–56 48.1 6.14

Discipline 18–36 27.3 4.18

Education 38–64 55.3 6.48

General welfare and protection 29–52 45.8 5.75

Responsivity 22–48 40.8 5.74

Sensitivity 17–36 29.1 4.82

Total positive 145–252 213.4 24.18

Negative 0–28 4.6 4.90

PSI-SF

Parental distress 12–48 22.7 7.07

Parent–child dysfunction 12–33 17.4 5.16

Difficult child 12–44 22.5 6.97

Total PSI-SF 36–121 62.6 15.60

MSPSS

Family 4–28 24.4 5.02

Friends 4–28 23.4 5.15

Significant other 4–28 24.7 5.42

Total MSPSS 13–84 72.5 14.17

J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198 193

123

Page 5: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

instead of examining the subscales because this research

studied perceived social support as a whole and where the

support was coming from was not the focus of this study.

Additionally, it was thought that in a sample size of 87, the

total score would be more reliable. The total social support

score as well as the range for the subscales can be found in

Table 1.

Research Question 1

Correlations were used to examine the association of social

support and parenting stress on PBIQ-R ratings within

married respondents. Respondents were given the PBIQ-R

to assess parenting beliefs regarding the importance of

parenting behaviors as well as the PSI-SF and the MSPSS

to assess parenting stress and perceived social support,

respectively.

The total positive score as well as each of the seven

PBIQ-R subscales scores were correlated with parenting

stress (i.e., the total score from the PSI-SF) and perceived

social support (i.e., the total score from the MSPSS). The

ranges, means, and standard deviations of all of the mea-

sures (i.e., PBIQ-R, PSI-SF, MSPSS) can be found in

Table 1. Correlations between the seven subscales of the

PBIQ-R, the total positive PBIQ-R subscales, the total

parenting stress score on the PSI-SF, and the total social

support score on the MSPSS can be found in Table 2.

In general, less parenting stress (i.e., low total parenting

stress score) was related to more positive parenting beliefs

regarding the importance of parenting behaviors (i.e., high

scores on the PBIQ-R subscales and total positive score,

low scores for negativity) and more parenting stress (i.e.,

high total parenting stress score) was related to less posi-

tive parenting beliefs regarding the importance of parenting

behaviors (i.e., low scores on the PBIQ-R subscales and

total positive score, high scores for negativity) within this

group (see Table 2). Specifically, bonding, education,

general welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity,

and total positive PBIQ-R scores were all found to be

significantly negatively correlated to total parenting stress.

In other words, high scores on bonding, education, general

welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity, as well as

high total positive score (i.e., more positive parenting

beliefs regarding the importance of parenting behaviors in

these areas) were significantly associated with low total

parenting stress scores on the PSI-SF (i.e., less parenting

stress). Additionally, the negativity subscale was signifi-

cantly positively correlated with total parenting stress. In

other words, high scores on the negativity subscale (i.e.,

higher indications of importance regarding more negative

parenting behaviors) were significantly associated with

high total parenting stress scores on the PSI-SF (i.e., more

parenting stress). Discipline was not found to be signifi-

cantly related to total parenting stress.

Regarding total social support (i.e., the total score from

the MSPSS, which indicates the amount of perceived social

support), only general welfare and protection as well as

responsivity were found to be significantly positively cor-

related. This means that high total scores on the general

welfare and protection as well as responsivity subscales

(i.e., more positive parenting beliefs regarding the impor-

tance of parenting behaviors in these areas) were

Table 2 Correlations of PBIQ-R subscales, PSI-SF total parenting stress score, and the MSPSS total social support score

Measure 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PBIQ-R

1. Bon .56** .81** .80** .82* .71** .92** -.01 -.28** .14

2. Dis – .59** .51** .42** .38** .67** .05 -.15 -.01

3. Ed – .86** .81** .72** .93** -.03 -.38** .17

4. Gen – .83** .76** .92** -.03 -.25* .23*

5. Res – .90** .90** -.06 -.38** .24*

6. Sen – .84** -.00 -.34** .16

7. Pos – .02 -.35** .18

8. Neg – .22* -.16

PSI-SF

9. Tot – -.13

MSPSS

10. Tot –

Bon bonding, Dis discipline, Ed education, Gen general welfare and protection, Res responsivity, Sen sensitivity, Pos total positive, Neg negative,

Tot total

* p \ .05

** p \ .01

194 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198

123

Page 6: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

significantly associated with high total social support

scores on the MSPSS (i.e., more perceived social support).

Bonding, education, discipline, sensitivity, the total posi-

tive score, and negativity were all not found to be signifi-

cantly related to total social support.

Research Question 2

A multiple regression (i.e., a statistical analysis that

describes the changes in a dependent variable, parenting

behaviors, associated with changes in one or more inde-

pendent variables, parenting stress and social support) was

used to examine the third hypothesis. That is, a multiple

regression was used to examine if individuals who endorse

more perceived social support (i.e., higher total social

support values on the MSPSS) will report less parental

stress (i.e., lower total parenting stress values on the PSI-

SF) and consequently more positive parenting beliefs

regarding the importance of parenting behaviors (i.e.,

higher total values on each of the PBIQ-R subscales, with

the exception of negativity, which would have a lower total

value).

In order to ascertain whether perceived social support

(i.e., total social support score on the MSPSS) moderated

(i.e., changed the relationship between parenting stress and

parenting ideas) the effects of parenting stress (i.e., total

parenting stress score on the PSI-SF) on parenting beliefs

regarding the importance of parenting behaviors (i.e., total

scores from each of the PBIQ-R subscales), the total social

support (i.e., the total social support score from the

MSPSS) and total parenting stress (i.e., the total parenting

stress score from the PSI-SF) were mean centered. That is,

the mean was subtracted from each variable to make the

coefficients easier to interpret and to reduce multicolline-

arity (a statistical phenomenon in which two or more pre-

dictor variables in a multiple regression model are highly

correlated) (Cronbach 1987). Then, the mean centered

variables (i.e., stress and social support, which represent

total parenting stress and total social support respectively),

were multiplied together to make a new multiplicative

composite variable (i.e., stress * social support). These

mean centered variables and the multiplicative composite

were entered into eight regression analyses in order to

predict parenting beliefs regarding the importance of par-

enting behaviors. That is, stress and social support were

entered into a regression analysis to predict each of the

PBIQ-R subscales’ (bonding, discipline, education, general

welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity and nega-

tivity) scores as well as positive parenting overall.

The results were as follows. Even though parent-

ing stress and social support significantly predicted the

PBIQ-R subscales’ scores independently, the multiplicative

composite variable did not predict the PBIQ-R subscales’

scores (see Table 3).

Therefore, across all these analyses, total social support

was not found to moderate the relationship between par-

enting stress and parenting beliefs regarding parent

behavior importance. In other words, social support did not

influence the relationship between parenting stress and

parenting beliefs regarding parent behavior importance.

That is, individuals with high parenting stress (i.e., high

total parenting stress scores on the PSI-SF) had less posi-

tive parenting beliefs (i.e., low total scores on bonding,

education, general welfare and protection, responsivity,

sensitivity, and positive parenting, and high total scores on

negativity) regardless of their perceived social support (i.e.,

the total social support score from the MSPSS). Addi-

tionally, individuals with low parenting stress (i.e., low

total parenting stress scores on the PSI-SF) had more

positive parenting beliefs (i.e., high scores on bonding,

education, general welfare and protection, responsivity,

sensitivity and positive parenting overall and low total

scores on negativity) regardless of their perceived social

support. Discipline was not significantly related to par-

enting stress, regardless of perceived social support.

In summary, the results reveal that high indications of

importance associated with bonding, education, general

welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity, as well as

total positive PBIQ-R scores (i.e., more positive parenting

beliefs in these areas) were significantly correlated with

low total parenting scores on the PSI-SF (i.e., less parental

stress). Additionally, high indications of importance asso-

ciated with general welfare and protection as well as with

responsivity (i.e., more positive parenting beliefs in these

areas) were significantly associated with high total social

Table 3 Regression results for parenting ideas

DV F (3,83) R2 t(83)

Stress Soc sup Interaction

Bonding 2.79* 0.09 -2.57** 1.02 0.33

Discipline 0.67 0.02 -1.35 -0.26 -0.09

Education 5.05** 0.15 -3.44*** 1.14 0.03

General 3.12* 0.10 -2.04* 1.81 -0.09

Responsivity 6.32*** 0.19 -3.61*** 2.08* 0.74

Sensitivity 4.13** 0.13 -3.11** 1.14 0.18

Positive 4.44** 0.14 -3.14** 1.34 0.16

Negativity 2.43 0.08 2.10* -1.54 -1.22

DV dependent variable, General general welfare and protection,

Positive total positive, Soc Sup social support, Interaction interaction

of stress * social support

* p B .05

** p B .01

*** p B .001

J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198 195

123

Page 7: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

support scores on the MSPSS (i.e., more perceived social

support). Furthermore, social support did not influence the

relationship between parental stress and parenting ideas.

Discussion

The present study built on work completed by Harari

(2005), Mowder (2005), and Simons et al. (1993a). Mow-

der (2005) delineated the PDT, which stated that parenting

largely encompasses six dimensions (i.e., bonding, disci-

pline, education, general welfare and protection, respon-

sivity, sensitivity). Harari (2005) used the PBIQ, a scale

developed from the PDT, to examine the relationship of

parenting beliefs to adolescents’ social skills and problem

behaviors. Simons et al. (1993a) examined specific deter-

minants that affect parenting beliefs and behaviors.

This research study used the PDT to examine the rela-

tionship of determinants (i.e., parental stress and perceived

social support) to parenting beliefs and behaviors in a

sample of parents of pre-school and elementary school

students. Specifically, parents completed a variety of

measures, including a revised version of the PBIQ, the PSI-

SF, and the MSPSS. From the PBIQ-R, beliefs concerning

the importance of bonding, discipline, education, general

welfare and protection, responsivity, sensitivity and nega-

tivity were examined. These parenting beliefs were then

considered in light of parental stress and perceived social

support.

In general, less parenting stress was related to more

positive parenting beliefs regarding the importance of

parenting behaviors and more parenting stress was related

to less positive parenting beliefs regarding the importance

of parenting behaviors within a married population. Spe-

cifically, higher total scores on the PBIQ-R bonding, edu-

cation, general welfare and protection, responsivity, and

sensitivity subscales as well as total positive PBIQ-R were

all found to be significantly associated with lower levels of

measured parenting stress. Additionally, higher scores on

the PBIQ-R negative subscale were found to be signifi-

cantly related to more parenting stress. Therefore, parents

indicating more parenting stress tended to endorse negative

parenting behaviors as important.

Discipline, on the other hand, was not significantly

associated with parenting stress. In other words, parenting

stress did not influence parental beliefs regarding disci-

pline. Parental beliefs about discipline may not have been

affected by parental stress because individuals might have

distinctive ideas about discipline, regardless of parenting

stress. Discipline, as opposed to other parenting ideas, is a

concept where individuals differ. While most parents may

believe that it is important to bond with their children,

educate their children, take care of their children’s needs

and so forth, individuals have very diverse ideas about

discipline (Nelms 2005). Thus, discipline can vary amongst

parents despite high or low parenting stress.

Although the relationship between parenting beliefs and

stress are relatively strong, those between parenting beliefs

and social support are not as clear, at least from this

research. To be sure, Broadhead et al. (1983) provided

evidence to support the hypothesis that social support may

generate helpful direct effects (e.g., more positive parent-

ing), despite the level of stress or disruption in a person’s

life. Others have shown that social support functions pri-

marily as a buffer, protecting individuals from the harmful

effects of stress, which affects parenting behaviors (i.e.,

more positive parenting) (Cohen and McKay 1984; House

1981).

When considering the correlations between perceived

social support and parenting beliefs, this research primarily

shows little relationship between social support and par-

enting beliefs. However, there were two subscales from the

PBIQ-R that had a significant relationship with social

support. Specifically, higher total scores on general welfare

and protection as well as responsivity were found to be

significantly correlated with higher total social support

scores on the MSPSS. This means that more positive par-

enting indications of importance associated with general

welfare and protection as well as responsivity were sig-

nificantly associated with more social support.

On the other hand, bonding, discipline, education, sen-

sitivity and negativity were not significantly related to the

MSPSS. In other words, parenting indications of impor-

tance in the areas of bonding, discipline, education, sen-

sitivity, and negativity were not influenced by social

support. When people perceive that they have more social

support, they may be better able to give basic care to their

children and respond to their children appropriately. Con-

versely, characteristics that may require more than basic

care (i.e., bonding, discipline, education, sensitivity and

negativity) may not be related to perceived social support

because social support, in a married sample, can only

somewhat influence parenting beliefs. In other words,

parents may be more able to give basic care and respond to

their children in a more positive manner when they have

more social support; however, social support might not be

significant enough to influence parenting beliefs in the

areas of bonding, discipline, education, sensitivity and

negativity.

Additionally, social support was not found to moderate

(i.e., influence) the relationship between parenting stress

and parenting beliefs regarding the importance of parenting

behaviors. Thus, parenting stress seemed to be too strong a

predictor of parenting beliefs and did not seem to be buf-

fered by social support in a sample of married individuals.

Essentially, the results from this research indicate that the

196 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198

123

Page 8: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

relationship between parenting stress and parenting beliefs

was not influenced by social support. Additionally,

although more parenting stress was significantly associated

with less positive parenting beliefs, this study did not show

that more social support would influence this relationship

as hypothesized.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several research limitations within the present

study. Future studies may benefit from having more single,

divorced, and separated participants, so that meaningful

comparisons between samples may be made. Since being

single seems to affect parenting stress and perceived social

support (Copeland and Harbaugh 2005), having a larger

sample of single participants may have highlighted issues

regarding parental social support. Specifically, social sup-

port may be associated with perceptions of parent behavior

importance in all areas and might influence the relationship

between parental stress and parenting beliefs in a more

varied sample with regard to marital status.

Furthermore, married individuals, by virtue of being

married, may have more social support. Perhaps, within a

more heterogeneous sample with regard to marital status,

there would be more differences in social support and

social support may in fact influence the effects of parenting

stress on parenting beliefs. Thus, the results found in this

study cannot be generalized to all parent samples. Addi-

tional research can look at parenting stress and perceived

social support within a more varied sample with regards to

marital status.

Lastly, because this study employed self-report mea-

sures, the responses provided by participants may not have

been completely accurate. In spite of assurances that their

responses would remain confidential, participants may not

have felt comfortable with admitting to high parenting

stress and/or low perceived social support. Additionally,

participants may not have been introspective, and therefore

may have had difficulty commenting on their anxiety

relating to parenting. Further research, perhaps employing

alternative data methods, may address these limitations and

related issues.

Implications for School-Clinical Psychology

This study can be applied to school psychology for

assessment, consultation and intervention purposes. That

is, the finding that more parental stress is related to less

positive beliefs regarding the importance of parenting

behaviors as well as that more positive parenting indica-

tions of importance associated with general welfare and

protection and responsivity were significantly associated

with more social support are signs for professional practice.

For instance, school psychologists can offer workshops for

parents to help incorporate strategies to reduce parenting

stress. Furthermore, school psychologists can include

scales measuring parenting stress and parenting behaviors

during assessments in order to obtain more extensive

information to better understand children and their parent–

child relationships and develop suitable interventions. The

results may promote school psychologists’ understanding

of the different roles of parents, appreciating parent role

complexity, and relating parental stress to the parent role.

This knowledge may assist practitioners in becoming more

effective consultants by increasing their sensitivity to the

myriad of parenting perspectives.

Additionally, since parents’ behavior is generally con-

sistent with their beliefs, assessments and interventions will

be more appropriate and meaningful if professionals

involve parents and are familiar with their view of the

parenting role. For instance, if professionals incorporate

scales to assess parenting beliefs and parenting stress when

assessing children and implementing interventions, they

may have a broader picture of the child that is being

assessed and may be better able to employ appropriate

interventions (Mowder and Shamah 2009).

Lastly, this study can facilitate development of parent

education programs that are based on theory and effective

in helping parents parent more successfully. If psycholo-

gists are able to ascertain different risk factors for inef-

fectual parenting (e.g., parental stress and lack of social

support), then they can design programs aimed at helping

parents avoid these risk factors and consequently aid par-

ents in parenting more successfully. Understanding whe-

ther parental stress as well as social support and parenting

behaviors are related is essential in the development of a

parenting program since programs will need to address

such issues.

If other studies find that social support does, in fact,

change the relationship between parental stress and par-

enting behaviors then parenting programs may want to

facilitate a larger social support network for parents as

well. Exploratory research regarding parental age, and

number of children can also be helpful in shaping further

research in this area. Specifically, parenting workshops

may want to target different parenting beliefs for parents of

different ages and for parents with larger and smaller

families. For example, since parents with fewer children

were found to be related to more positive and negative

parenting ideas, parenting workshops for parents with

smaller families can focus on helping parents maintain

their positive parenting beliefs and teach parents strategies

regarding how to adjust their negative parenting beliefs.

Additional research on parents’ age and family size can

augment this data and aid in further improving parenting

workshops.

J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198 197

123

Page 9: Parenting Beliefs, Parental Stress, and Social Support Relationships

References

Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model.

Child Development, 55, 83–96.

Bonds, D. D., Gondoli, D. M., Sturge-Apple, M. L., & Salem, L. N.

(2002). Parenting stress as a mediator of the relationship between

parenting support and optimal parenting. Parenting: Science andPractice, 2, 409–435.

Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Socioeconomic status,parenting and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Broadhead, W. E., Kaplan, B. H., James, S. A., Wagner, E. H.,

Schoenback, V. J., Grimson, R., et al. (1983). The epidemio-

logical evidence for a relationship between social support and

health. American Journal of Epidemiology, 117, 521–537.

Cairney, J., Boyle, M., Offord, D. R., & Racine, Y. (2003). Stress,

social support, and depression in single and married mothers.

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(8),

442–449.

Canty-Mitchell, J., & Zimet, G. D. (2000). Psychometric properties of

the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in urban

adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28,

391–400.

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress, and the

buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, J.

E. Singer, & S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Handbook of psychology andhealth (Vol. 4, pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., &

Bornstein, M. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The

case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55,

218–232.

Copeland, D., & Harbaugh, B. L. (2005). Differences in parenting

stress between married and single first time mothers at six to

eight weeks after birth. Issues in Comprehensive PediatricNursing, 28, 139–152.

Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws

in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3),

414–417.

Degarmo, D. S., Patras, J., & Eap, S. (2008). Social support for

divorced fathers’ parenting: Testing a stress-buffering model.

Family Relations, 57, 35–48.

Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare

reform, and child development. Child Development, 71,

188–196.

Gage, G. M., & Christensen, D. H. (1991). Parental role socialization

and the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 40, 332–337.

Green, B. L., Furrer, C., & McAllister, C. (2007). How do

relationships support parenting? Effects of attachment style

and social support on parenting behavior in an at-risk population.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 96–108.

Harari, B. (2005). Parenting characteristics in relation to children’ssocial skills. Retrieved from dissertations and theses database.

(AAT 3192923).

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Levy-Shiff, R., Dimitrovsky, L., Shulman, S., & Har-Even, D. (1998).

Cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and support resources as

correlates of parenting and infant development. DevelopmentalPsychology, 34, 1417–1427.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of

the family: Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

Magnuson, K. J., & Duncan, G. J. (2004). Parent versus child-based

intervention strategies for promoting children’s well-being. In A.

Kalil & T. DeLeire (Eds.), Family investments in children’spotential: Resources and parenting behaviors that promotesuccess (pp. 209–236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Mowder, B. A. (1993). Parent role research. Early ChildhoodInterests, 8(3), 6.

Mowder, B. A. (2000). Parent role behaviors: Implications for schoolpsychologists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans.

Mowder, B. A. (2005). Parent development theory: Understanding

parents, parenting perceptions, and parenting behaviors. Journalof Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 1, 45–64.

Mowder, B. A., & Sanders, M. (2008). Parent behavior importance

and parent behavior frequency questionnaires: Psychometric

characteristics. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17(5),

675–688.

Mowder, B. A., & Shamah, R. S. (2009). Parent assessment and

intervention. In B. A. Mowder, F. Rubinson, & A. E. Yasik

(Eds.), Evidence-based practice in infant and early childhoodpsychology (pp. 207–236). New York: Wiley.

Nelms, B. C. (2005). Discipline: Parents need our help. Journal ofPediatric Health Care, 19, 195–196.

Ostberg, M., & Hagekull, B. (2000). A structural modeling approach

to the understanding of parenting stress. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology, 29, 615–625.

Raaijmakers, Q. A. (1999). Effectiveness of different missing data

treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the

relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 59, 725–748.

Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2005). Efficacy and social support

as predictors of parenting stress among families in poverty.

Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 177–190.

Sepa, A., Frodi, A., & Ludvigsson, J. (2004). Psychosocial correlates

of parenting stress, lack of support, and lack of confidence/

security. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 169–179.

Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Cogner, R. D., & Chao, W. (1993a).

Childhood experience, conceptions of parenting, and attitudes of

spouse as determinants of parental behavior. Journal ofMarriage & the Family, 55, 91–106.

Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Cogner, R. D., & Chao, W. (1993b).

Stress, support and antisocial behavior trait as determinants of

emotional well-being and parenting practices among single

mothers. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 55, 385–398.

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent

relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 11, 1–19.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988).

The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journalof Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.

198 J Child Fam Stud (2012) 21:190–198

123