Child rearing styles have been broadly characterized into three classifications, authoritative, authoritarian and permissive as depicted by Baumrind. Child rearing styles can be characterized as an example of demeanors in how guardians interact with their children. These styles are varied by the level of nurturance, parental control, and level of responsiveness (Dwairy, 2004).
Authoritative style displays abnormal amounts of interest, responsiveness, and nurturance; authoritarian style shows elevated amounts of interest however low levels of responsiveness, permissive style shows low levels of interest yet high in responsiveness and nurturance (Dwairy, 2004). These child-rearing styles all have been proposed to significantly affect a child’s improvement and also scholarly accomplishment and mental prosperity. Youth raised by authoritative guardians have the most abnormal amounts of scholastic accomplishment, confidence, passionate change and prosperity as per Baumrind’s class of styles (Dwairy, 2004). In any case, these three classifications depend on Western examples and have been said to depict child-rearing styles chiefly in the West and question its restrictions in portraying child rearing crosswise over societies, as each style’s characterizing examples may have distinctive implications crosswise over societies. Authoritative child rearing among European is related more grounded with high scholastic accomplishment when contrasted with the Chinese, as the meaning of authoritative child rearing is more in the lines of what Westerners accept is the ideal approach to raise a very much adjusted and sound child (Li, Costanzo and Putallaz, 2010). The European members likewise announced more elevated amounts of self-improvement objectives from their mothers and authoritative child rearing was emphatically connected with members’ social enthusiastic change (Li, Costanzo and Putallaz, 2010).
In any case, authoritarian child rearing was adversely corresponded with European members’ scholastic self-adequacy and enthusiastic alteration yet emphatically connected for the Chinese. Among European Westerners, authoritative child rearing is more unmistakable and supposedly rears more valuable results to the kid. Middle Easterner culture has been portrayed as authoritarian; youngsters are required to take after parent’s controls, desires, and requests (Dwairy, 2004). Acquiescence is a focal part of making an agreeable aggregate society among Arabs and noncompliance is viewed as an extreme wrongdoing that outcomes in serious results (Dwairy, 2004). The three articles that looked at parenting styles across cultures discussed in this paper have provided sufficient evidence that the concept of parenting styles is culturally specific.
Across the three cultures examined, European American, Chinese and Arab, there was a significant difference in how each culture understood the style of authoritarian parenting. For the Europeans, authoritarian parenting is associated with a style that is strict, demanding, obedient oriented and nonresponsive to their child’s needs. This type of parenting style further leads to lower levels of adjustment, academic achievement, and well-being in their children. While Arab and Chinese culture sees the dimensions of authoritarian parenting positively. An authoritarian style in Chinese and Arab culture led children to have higher levels of academic achievement and did not see a decrease in their mental health or social adjustment as predicted in Baumrind’s categories of parenting styles. The reason for this difference can largely be explained by whether a culture is individualistic or collectivistic. In an individualistic culture like Europeans, there is an emphasis on developing autonomy, individual goals, and individual rights.
In such a culture, the dimensions that make up authoritarian parenting is not congruent with the values promoted in an individualistic culture. Thus the impact of authoritarian parenting is seen to lead to negative outcomes. In collectivistic cultures like Chinese and Arab, there is a stronger emphasis on harmony within a kinship, each is seen to be dependent and embedded in a community, and the rights of families and society surpass those of the individual. In a collectivistic culture, the dimensions of authoritarian parenting like demand and control carry different meaning as they promote collectivistic values thus leading to positive outcomes for their children.
Furthermore as displayed in Chao’s article, there are cultural specific dimensions that go beyond what constitutes as authoritarian parenting, as shown in concepts like ‘training’ and to ‘govern’ found in Chinese childrearing. From the findings of the three articles, it can be concluded that the concept of parenting styles universally exists as each culture exhibited a pattern of childrearing but the behavior and meaning that constitutes a category of parenting style differs across cultures. ReferencesChao, Ruth K. “Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting through the Cultural Notion of Training.
” Child Development, vol. 65, no. 4, 1994, pp. 1111–1119., doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.
tb00806.x.Dwairy, Marwan. “Parenting Styles and Mental Health of PalestinianâArab Adolescents in Israel.” Transcultural Psychiatry, vol. 41, no. 2, 2004, pp. 233–252.
, doi:10.1177/1363461504043566.Li, Yan, et al. “Maternal Socialization Goals, Parenting Styles, and Social-Emotional Adjustment Among Chinese and European American Young Adults: Testing a Mediation Model.
” The Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 171, no. 4, 2010, pp. 330–362., doi:10.1080/00221325.2010.505969.