parenting beliefs, parental stress, and social support relationships
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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