September
02nd
  6:19:42 AM

Parenting pathways

Image: IstockIf your parents were negative and harsh with you growing up, that’s the way you will be with your kids. And if they were positive and affectionate, well, lucky for your kids. That’s the assumption behind a popular theory of parenting, but researchers who have done long-term studies say it’s wrong.

Parenting styles have their effect much earlier, says David Kerr of Oregon State University, by allowing good or bad behaviour to take hold in adolescence. And this happens in two ways: by modelling good/bad ways of dealing with people, and by monitoring/not monitoring what they learn from other people.

"For instance, if you try to control your child with anger and threats, he learns to deal in this way with peers, teachers, and eventually his own children.

“If you do not track where your child is, others will take over your job of teaching him about the world. But those lessons may involve delinquency and a lifestyle that is not compatible with becoming a positive parent," Kerr pointed out.

So, the “pathway” from one generation to another is not a matter of remembering back to how your parents did it, but through the habits you have already formed. The good news is that it works in a positive sense as well.

"We knew that these negative pathways can be very strong," Kerr said. "What surprised us is how strong positive parenting pathways are as well. Positive parenting is not just the absence of negative influences, but involves taking an active role in a child's life."

The researchers found that children who had parents who monitored their behavior, were consistent with rules and were warm and affectionate were more likely to have close relationships with their peers, be more engaged in school, and have better self-esteem.

"So part of what good parenting does is not only protect you against negative behaviors but instill positive connections with others during adolescence that then impact how you relate with your partner and your own child as an adult," Kerr said

The study, by the way, was done with 206 boys considered at risk for delinquency, from the age of 9 to 33. Whatever those risks were (and the full study is to be published in the journal Developmental Psychology this month) they were clearly less critical than what the parents actually did. And that seems to be another argument for parent education.



 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to FamilyEdge
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
Housewife revival is not such a bad thing
23 May 2013
Declaration of 2013 World Congress of Families
21 May 2013
World Congress of Families 2013
19 May 2013
Rise of the stay-at-home dad
15 May 2013
Record proportion of new mothers are college educated
13 May 2013

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2013 | Apr 2013 | Mar 2013 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

The Boy Scouts cave in
24 May 2013
Under enormous pressure, they have voted to welcome openly gay scouts. What message does the change in policy send young…

A boy’s life with unisex scouts
23 May 2013
The Boy Scouts of America will vote today on whether they will admit homosexual scouts. Will they become the Unisex…

Necessary excuses
23 May 2013
“Comfort women”, carpet bombing, atom bombs, lethal drones and genocide can all be justified by appeals to necessity.

Digital multitasking: scourge or blessing?
22 May 2013
How can we teach students to focus on what they ought to be doing?

Who or what is a “child”?
22 May 2013
Canada's Parliament lacks the courage to take a stand on defining when an unborn child will be protected by the…


 Tags
Africa, emerging adults, teen pregnancy, United States, gender equality, celebrities, texting, smacking, one-child policy, internet safety, cohabitation, gender, demography, ageing population, sexual behaviour, research, youth, social networking, adoption, boys, divorce, polygamy, recession, Canada, child obesity, dating, work, language, parental rights, poverty, family meals, France, immigration, media, trafficking, child abuse, names, men, girls, anger, fatherhood, health, New Zealand, religion, Barack Obama, homosexuality, gendercide, motherhood, HIVAIDS, schools, family breakdown, parenting, teenage pregnancy, large families, child development, USA, family values, daycare, social media, television, adolescence, obesity, abstinence, China, violence, pornography, friendship, contraception, family, European Union, South Africa, children's health, sexualisation of children, brain, character education, economics, suicide, same-sex parenting, HomeMakers Project, child poverty, parents, birth control, National Marriage Project, prostitution, work-life balance, children, character, psychology, marriage, single motherhood, commitment, young adult, education, AIDS, media ethics, family relationships, teenagers, internet, sleep, fashion, same-sex marriage, education of children, Australia, morality, parenthood, feminism, Sweden, child behaviour, family policy, sex education, Hollywood, fathers, abortion, modesty, mothers, family structure, families, childcare, video games, family economics, adolescents, ageing, Facebook, fertility, working mothers, UK, technology, pregnancy, homeschooling, child wellbeing, Spain, books, child welfare, self-control, mental health, unemployment, child safety, baby boomers, United Nations, women, happiness,