Content uploaded by David Bredehoft
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Bredehoft on Dec 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
PERCEPTIONS ATTRIBUTED BY ADULTS TO PARENTAL
OVERINDULGENCE DURING CHILDHOOD
DAVID J. BREDEHOFT1
Concordia University – St. Paul
SHERYLL A. MENNICKE
Concordia University – St. Paul
ALISA M. POTTER
Concordia University – St. Paul
JEAN ILLSLEY CLARKE
J.I. Consultants – Minneapolis
Overindulgent parents inundate their children with family resources (material wealth,
time, experiences) at developmentally inappropriate times. Surveys were collected from
730 subjects of which 124 identified themselves as adult children of overindulgence
(ACO). Results indicated that ACOs were: overindulged most often by both parents;
overindulged for a significant period of their lives; and overindulged due to parental
issues such as poverty, chemical dependency or overwork. ACOs simultaneously felt
both positively and negatively about the overindulgence, that is, they felt loved, confused,
guilty, bad and sad. Overindulgence was related to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and
addiction. ACOs reported being affected by the overindulgence into adulthood, indicated
by symptoms such as overeating, overspending, and experiencing problems with
childrearing, interpersonal boundaries, and decision making. Implications for parents
and family educators are presented.
Concerned parents often consult family educators and pediatric-care
professionals, asking if what they are doing is going to “spoil” their child (Nelms, 1983;
McIntosh, 1989; Wilson, Witxke, & Volin, 1981). Nelms (1983) indicated parents
experience ambivalence and confusion when they do not know the difference between
“nurturing parental behaviors” and “indulgent behaviors.” Nurturing behavior leads to
1 Components of this research were reported at the meetings of the Minnesota Council on Family Relations
and the National Council on Family Relations. The authors thank Alison Anderson, Adam Erickson, Kevin
Schlieman, and Robert Cullen, Concordia University psychology students who served as research assistants
on this project and Heather Dyslin who assisted in manuscript preparation.
David J. Bredehoft is Professor of Psychology and Family Studies and chairs the Department of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Concordia University, St. Paul, MN. Sheryll A. Mennicke is Associate Professor of
Psychology, Concordia University, St. Paul, MN. Alisa M. Potter is Associate Professor of Sociology,
Concordia University, St. Paul, MN. Jean Illsley Clarke is Director of the Self-Esteem and Transactional
Analysis Center, Minneapolis, MN.
To obtain a copy of the survey, contact David J. Bredehoft, Professor of Psychology and Family Studies
and Chair of the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Concordia University, 275 Syndicate
Street North, St. Paul, MN 55104-5494 bredehoft@luther.csp.edu.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 1
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
healthy attachment between parent and child, while overindulgent behavior on the part of
the parent leads to excessive self-centered and immature behavior in the child (Clarke &
Dawson 1998; McIntosh, 1989). The construct of overindulgence has not been well
represented in parenting research, consequently the authors looked to research in two
related areas; the spoiling of children and parenting styles.
In the process of studying the lives of poor, vulnerable, and harassed children,
Coles (1977) studied the effects of affluence. The author stated, “‘Privileged’ children
keep struggling with their perceptions of what life is like in America for others, for the
less fortunate. [T]he ‘privileged’ seem, in fact, frightened and guilty and confused and
conflicted – in their own ways, victims” (p. xiv).
Parents and grandparents, friends and relatives, educators and therapists voice
similar concerns about today’s children. Many believe children now are in a privileged
generation which is showered with excess materialism. Hausner (1990), a therapist who
has done extensive counseling with parents and children of affluent families, cited
numerous problems resulting from affluence: “Just as poverty has a profound influence,
so too does affluence. It creates distinct opportunities as well as problems…spoiled
children with obnoxious behavior and superior attitudes, unmotivated adolescents who
care only for their stereos and clothes, reckless teenagers living delinquent and self-
destructive lives” (p. 9).
Spoiling Children
Spoiled Child Syndrome
Swain (1985) and McIntosh (1989), practitioners in the fields of mental health
and pediatrics, independently identified the “spoiled child syndrome.” Swain (1985)
suggested that this syndrome “occurs when the parent indulges the child’s every whim or
wish” (p. 67). Further, it has to do with a parent relinquishing power to the child and
results in children who are “obnoxious, ill-tempered, ill-mannered, selfish, and often
immoral” (p. 67). McIntosh (1989) expanded the definition by suggesting that the
spoiled child syndrome was:
characterized by excessive self-centered and immature behavior, resulting
from the failure of parents to enforce consistent, age-appropriate limits.
Spoiled children display a lack of consideration for others, demand to have
their own way, have difficulty delaying gratification, and are prone to
temper outbursts. Their behavior is intrusive, obstructive, and
manipulative (p. 108).
Both definitions highlighted behavioral outcomes resulting from spoiling children. While
one definition suggested the spoiled child syndrome resulted from relinquishing parental
power to the child, the other believed that it is directly related to the failure of parents to
enforce age-appropriate limits.
Spoiled Babies
Solomon, Marin & Cottington (1993) surveyed 303 parents and developed a
typology related to parental beliefs and the spoiling of infants. Type 1 parents (56%) in
their study did not believe an infant younger than five years old could be spoiled. Type 2
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 2
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
parents (20%) believed an infant should be spoiled, and Type 3 parents (24%) believed
infants could be spoiled, but should not be spoiled. In addition to identifying three
distinct types of beliefs about spoiling, Solomon et al. found race, income and education
differences between parenting types. Type 1 parents were more likely to be Caucasian
and have higher incomes and higher levels of education. Type 3 parents were more likely
to be African-American and have lower incomes and less education. Type 2 parents held
belief patterns that fell statistically between Type I and Type 3. This study suggests that
there were differences regarding parental attitudes concerning the spoiling of children.
These differences were related to socioeconomic and education levels, as well as to
ethnic groups.
Wilson et al. (1981) surveyed 531 parents in a rural Midwestern state on the
subject of spoiling a baby. The survey defined a baby as a child younger than one year of
age. Seventy-nine percent of the fathers and 66% of the mothers believed a baby could
be spoiled. Parents agreed a baby was spoiled by allowing the child to have its own way
(58% mothers; 54% fathers) and not setting limits for the child (53% mothers; 43%
fathers). When asked to describe a “spoiled baby,” parents most frequently used negative
terms: difficult to control, demanding, obnoxious, overindulged, and frustrated, while
positive descriptions such as happy, alert, affectionate, pleasant, well-adjusted, sociable,
content, and outgoing were used less often. Sixty-one percent of mothers and 56% of
fathers indicated that the effects could be seen between the first and fifth year of life.
Almost a quarter (23% mothers; 22% fathers) felt that the effects would continue to be
seen throughout the teenage years.
Beyond Control Adolescents
Perhaps, as Wilson, Witzke, & Volin’s (1981) study suggested, the effects of
spoiling a child may last throughout adolescence. Robinson (1978) investigated child
rearing and disciplinary methods of parents who identified their adolescent boys as
serious control problems. The study matched boys on social and personal characteristics
from two family groups: 15 families in which the adolescent boy was on probation with
juvenile authorities for failure to obey his parents, and 15 families in which the
adolescent boy was reported by his parents to be well behaved. “Parents of the beyond
control adolescents were reported to be more inconsistent in setting and enforcing rules,
less likely to praise, encourage, and show interest in their adolescents, and to be higher in
hostile detachment” (p. 109).
Even though Robinson (1978) was not investigating the “spoiling of adolescents”
per se, the results of the study lent support to the notion that there may be a link between
parenting style and beyond control adolescent behavior. A parenting style that is
inconsistent in setting and enforcing rules, hostile, and non-nurturing, may encourage
“out of control” or “spoiled children.”
Parenting Styles
How and to what extent parents sought to control their children has been one of
the most heavily researched aspects of parenting. Baumrind (1966, 1983, 1991, 1996)
and Rohner (1986, 1994) identified four parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative,
rejecting-neglecting, and permissive.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 3
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
These four parenting styles were organized along two dimensions: parental
responsiveness to children and parental demandingness of children. “Responsiveness
refers to the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality and self-assertion
by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s needs and demands”
(Baumrind, 1996, p. 410). Salient features of parental responsiveness include warmth,
clear communication, reciprocity, and attachment. “Demandingness refers to the claims
that parents make on children to become integrated into the family and community by
their maturity expectations, supervision, disciplinary efforts, and willingness to confront
a disruptive child” (Baumrind, 1996, p. 411). Salient features of demandingness include
confrontation, monitoring, and consistent contingent discipline.
According to Baumrind (1996) authoritarian parents were high on demandingness
and low on responsiveness, imposed rules and standards and expected obedience and to
control their children by using punishment to ensure compliance. Parents who used this
style restricted autonomy so that their children’s self-will was overcome. Authoritative
parents are high on both responsive and demanding dimensions. They set limits and
consistently enforced them while explaining the reasons. With older children they
encouraged open discussion, valuing both self-will and conformity. Rejecting-neglecting
parents were detached from their children. They were not supportive and nurturant, and
they placed few, if any, demands on their child’s behavior (Rohner, 1986). Permissive
parents imposed few demands on their children for orderly conduct. Baumrind (1966)
described child-centered permissive parents as high on responsiveness and low on
demandingness. They allowed their children to make choices. They were supportive and
nurturant, but avoided exercising control over their child’s behavior. Research
(Coopersmith, 1967; Baumrind, 1983, 1991; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, and Mueller,
1988) suggested that warm, concerned, authoritative parents raised children with the
highest self-esteem, self-reliance, resilience, optimism, maturity, and social competence,
whereas authoritarian, rejecting-neglecting, and permissive parenting were associated
with a variety of childhood problems including lack of self-assertion, lower cognitive
competence, lower levels of individuation, social consciousness and autonomy, and
external locus of control (Baumrind, 1983, 1991). What is overindulgence and when
does parenting turn into overindulgence? How does overindulgence differ from spoiling
children? Are Baumrind’s “permissive parents” overindulgent parents?
Defining Overindulgence
Following a review of the literature and in-depth interviews with individuals who
identified themselves as being overindulged as children, the authors developed a
definition of overindulgence, which was used to frame this research. Overindulgent
parents inundate their children with family resources such as material wealth, time,
experiences, and lack of responsibility. They give children too much of what looks good,
too soon, too long and at developmentally inappropriate times. Overindulgent parents
may overindulge to meet their own needs, not the needs of their children. For example,
they may have grown up in poverty and do not want their child to experience the same.
When children are overindulged, they develop in an environment which is not realistic
since they do not learn skills such a perseverance, coping with failure in effective ways,
and compromising. Because overindulgence hinders children from completing their
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 4
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
developmental tasks and prevents them from learning necessary life lessons, it can be
conceptualized as a form of child neglect.
Overindulgence Compared to Spoiling Children
As reported earlier, there is no one definition of what it means to “spoil” a child
(Swain, 1985; McIntosh, 1989). However, some common elements may be found in the
existing definitions. Swain (1985) and McIntosh (1989) assumed the process of “spoiling
children” stemmed from the child’s needs, not the parent’s. Both definitions (Swain,
1985; McIntosh, 1989) suggested that “spoiling” resulted in excessive, self-centered,
obnoxious, and ill-tempered child behavior. In addition, spoiling a child resulted from
the relinquishment of parental power, and the failure of parents to enforce consistent age-
appropriate limits.
In contrast, the process of overindulgence stems from the parent’s needs, not the
child’s. Overindulgent parents do not provide their children with necessary structure. In
addition, they shower them with family resources at developmentally inappropriate times.
This hinders children from completing their developmental tasks. Overindulgence can be
considered a form of child neglect.
Overindulgence Compared to Permissive Parenting
At the heart of this investigation is overindulgence. Is Baumrind’s “permissive
parent” the same as the “overindulgent parent?” We believe not. We assert that not all
permissive parents are overindulgent. Baumrind’s (1996) permissive parent type focused
on the failure to enforce consistent, age-appropriate limits, which more closely fits the
definition of “spoiling” children, whereas, the overindulgent parent type focuses on
giving an overabundance of resources to children such as attention, material goods, time,
and experiences. These actions meet parental needs, and deprive children of completing
their developmental tasks.
Purpose
The current study was designed to begin the development of a knowledge base
about overindulgence. First, characteristics of adult children who identified themselves
as being overindulged (ACOs) are described. Then, the adults’ perceptions of
overindulgence and its effects are provided. Next, comparisons between adults who were
overindulged as children and those who were not are made. Specifically, the two groups
are compared on their own parenting styles, their self-indulgence, and the types of
relationships they seek out as adults. Using results from these investigations,
recommendations for parents and parent educators are made.
Method
Sample Description
Participants for the study were selected through a convenience sampling from
four groups: participants attending workshops on overindulgence or other family related
topics; trained parent facilitators; parents attending parenting classes; and students in
psychology classes at a small private midwestern college. Surveys were completed by
730 subjects (85.5% female and 14.5% male). Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 83
(Mean = 42.8 years). Of the 730 participants, 124 identified themselves as adult children
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 5
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
of overindulgence (ACOs). The ACO subsample was 87.7% females and 12.3% males.
ACOs ranged from 19 to 80 years of age (Mean = 42.2 years).
Questionnaire and Procedures
The questionnaire for this study was developed by the authors, following a series
of in-depth interviews with self-identified ACOs. The survey was then reviewed and
field-tested in a workshop setting. Respondents were asked to answer questions on
background demographic characteristics and then they read the following definition of
overindulgence which the authors had developed from interviews with adult children of
overindulgence:
Overindulging children means giving them too much of what looks good,
too soon, too long; giving them things or experiences that are not
appropriate for their age or their interests and talents. Overindulgence is
the process of giving things to children to meet the adult’s needs, not the
children’s needs.
Parents who overindulge give a disproportionate amount of family
resources to one or more children in a way that appears to meet the
children’s needs but does not. Overindulged children experience scarcity
in the midst of plenty. They have so much of something that it does active
harm or at least stagnates achieving their full potential. Overindulgence is
a form of child neglect. It hinders children from doing their
developmental tasks and from learning necessary life lessons.
After reading the definition, respondents categorized themselves as being
overindulged or not indulged as children. Subjects who identified themselves as
overindulged answered both closed and open-ended questions concerning their own
overindulgence, then proceeded to general questions on overindulgence. Participants not
experiencing overindulgence only answered general questions on overindulgence.
Sample closed and open-ended questions included: “Was there physical violence toward
you in your family?” “Check all of the following areas in which you experienced
overindulgence: love, toys, clothes, privileges, lessons, summer camps, time with parents,
holidays, sports, freedom, drugs, entertainment, no consistent chores expected, not having
to learn skills that were expected of other children, not having to follow the rules, being
allowed to take the lead or dominate the family, and having things done for me that I
could or should do for myself.”
Results
Descriptive characteristics of the ACO subsample (N=124) and their perceptions
of their overindulgence are provided first, followed by comparisons between adults who
were overindulged as children and those who were not.
Demographic Characteristics
ACOs reported high levels of education. Their family of origin was most
commonly identified as dual parent with a slight trend toward higher levels of
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 6
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
Table 1
ACO Demographic Characteristics*
Characteristic Frequency
Age
41-50 (Mode) 42%
_______________________________________________________
Characteristic Percentage
Sex
Male 12%
Female 88%
Education
< 12th Grade 27%
B.A. 38%
M.A. 29%
Ph.D. 2%
Trade School 3%
Perceived amount of money compared to other
Families when growing up
A whole lot more money 7%
More money 28%
About the same amount of money 44%
Less money 17%
A whole lot less money 5%
Family of origin
Two-parent 87%
Single parent 7%
Stepfamily 2%
Adoptive parent/Other relative 3%
Number of children in family of origin
One 6%
Two 21%
Three 28%
Four 22%
Five 11%
Six 12%
_______________________________________________________
*n = 124
family income. See Table 1 for additional demographic information. A substantial
percentage (27%) of ACOs indicated that physical violence was present in their
childhood homes. Of those reporting physical violence, 30% were spanked, 50% were
hit with belts, sticks or other objects, and 20% were beaten.
The following quotes tell their stories. “My father threatened me a lot and beat
me until I was temporarily paralyzed when I was young.” “My mother would lose
control and hit us with objects such as a vacuum cleaner hose, shoes, hair brushes and a
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 7
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
yard stick.” “Sometimes we were spanked with a strap. A few times I was slapped
across the face, and a few times hit until I was black and blue.” Seventy-two percent of
ACOs reported psychological abuse. Psychological abuse included ridiculing, shaming,
discounting and withholding love. Again, narrative data reflect these parent-child
interactions: “My dad made fun of me when I made a mistake and called me stupid. I felt
shamed.” “My father frequently ridiculed my abilities. He also withheld love, while my
mother overcompensated in the opposite direction.” Finally, 15% of ACOs reported
being sexually abused by a family member.
When ACOs were asked if there was addiction in their family of origin, 51%
responded “yes.” Of those saying “yes,” a majority indicated the addiction was based on
alcohol (66%), drugs (10%), work (10%), food (9%), perfectionism (2%), codependency
(2%), and sex (2%).
Table 2
Areas of Overindulgence*
Percentage Area
53% Having things done for me that I could do or should do for myself
53% No consistent chores expected
41% Clothes
36% Privileges
35% Toys
32% Freedom
32% Being allowed to take lead or dominate in the family
32% Not having to learn skills that were expected of other children
23% Love
23% Not having to follow rules
22% Lessons
18% Entertainment
17% Holidays
14% Summer camps
12% Time with parents
10% Sports
8% Drugs
___________________________________________________________________
*n = 124. Subjects could select more than one response.
Perceptions of Overindulgence
The largest number of ACOs reported being overindulged by both parents (43%),
followed closely by being indulged by mothers only (42%). Far fewer ACOs identified
fathers only (11%), grandmothers only (4%), and grandfathers only (1%) as
overindulgent. Overindulgence does not stop with the end of childhood. Thirty-nine
percent of ACOs reported overindulgence continuing through adolescence, 9% through
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 8
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
young adulthood, and 9% through later adulthood; while 22% reported being
overindulged throughout life with the indulgence still continuing.
ACOs reported being indulged in a variety of ways. Areas of indulgence cited
most frequently included having things done for them (53%), having no consistent chores
(53%), being given clothes (41%), being allowed privileges (35%), and being given toys
(35%). See Table 2 for additional information.
More than half of the ACOs (57%) indicated that the overindulgence appeared to
be related to another life event. Most frequently identified events were parental issues
such as chemical dependency or guilt, the death of a family member, and illness or other
medical issues relative to the child. See Table 3 for additional information.
Table 3
Life Events Related to Overindulgence*
Percentage Events
48% Issue stemming from parent (poverty, guilt, chemical dependency,
worked all of the time etc.)
18% Death of a loved one (sibling, parent etc.)
15% Illness
10% Birth order
5% Holidays
3% A reward for when I was good
2% Lack of communication
_______________________________________________________________
*n = 62.
Perceptions of the Effects of Overindulgence
ACOs exhibited a mixture of positive and negative feelings as a result of being
overindulged. A high percentage (48%) reported feeling loved, and 28% reported feeling
good because they got everything they wanted, but 44% felt confused, while 31% felt
guilty, bad and sad. See Table 4 for additional information.
Overindulgence appears to affect individuals well into adulthood. The great
majority (71%) of the overindulged subjects reported having difficulty knowing what is
enough, or what is normal as adults. Participants’ comments confirm this: “I have
extreme difficulty making decisions.” “I need praise and material reward to feel worthy.”
“I don’t have to grow up because other people will take care of me.” “I feel like I need
lots of things to feel good about myself.” “I’m unlovable.” “I have to buy gifts to be
loved.” “I constantly need outside affirmation from my friends.” ACOs who reported
difficulty knowing what is enough were asked to identify the adult situations that cause
them the most difficulty. Most subjects reported the area of food (21%), followed by
spending money and buying gifts (17%), parenting/child-rearing (17%), feelings of
what’s normal (14%), conflict with interpersonal boundaries and relationships (12%),
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 9
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
Table 4
Feelings Resulting from Overindulgence*
Percentage Feelings
48% I felt loved
44% I felt confused because it didn't feel right but couldn't complain
because how can I fault someone who does so much for me
40% I felt embarrassed because at times I was expected to know
some skills that I never had to learn
31% I felt guilty, bad, sad
29% I felt good at the time, but later I felt ashamed
28% I felt good because I got everything I wanted
27% I felt embarrassed because I knew it wasn't right
23% I felt bad because other kids didn't get what I did
19% No matter how much I got I never got enough so I felt sad
15% I felt good because I got to decide about everything
15% I felt bad because the other kids made fun of me
14% I felt embarrassed because other kids didn't have stuff
13% I felt ignored
13% I felt confused
11% I felt embarrassed because other kids teased me
11% No matter how much I got I never got enough, so I felt mad
__________________________________________________________________
*n = 124. Subjects could select more than one response.
decision making (11%), and excessive activities such as working, going to school,
exercising, playing and having fun (9%).
When asked which skills they feel are deficient because they did not learn them as
children, ACOs open-ended responses were coded into the following categories:
communication, interpersonal, and relationship skills (31%), domestic and home skills
(13%), mental and personal health skills (12%), decision making skills (11%), money and
time management skills (10%), and ability to be responsible (8%).
ACOs Compared to Non-indulged Adult Children
ACOs reported significantly greater indulgence of their own children than did the
non-indulged subjects ( (3) = 40.92, p = < .001). In addition to overindulging their own
children, ACOs reported higher levels of overindulging themselves than did subjects who
were not overindulged by their parents (X2 (3) = 39.1, p = < .001). This self-indulgence
resulted in gaining weight (16% of ACO respondents), feeling guilty (12%), and
experiencing lower self-esteem (6%), poor health (5.6%), and loneliness (4%).
Finally, subjects who were overindulged as children reported being less likely to
have had an extended adult relationship with someone who overindulged them than did
subjects who were not overindulged (X2 (1) = 19.57, p = < .001). See Table 5 for
additional comparative data.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 10
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
Table 5
Number of Overindulged and Non-indulged Subjects Reporting Tendency
to Overindulge Their Own Offspring, to Overindulge Themselves,
and to Seek Out Indulgent Relationships as Adults*
ACO
Subsample
Frequency/Percentage Frequency/Percentage
Overindulge own offspring?
Never 3 (3%) 38 (8%)
Seldom 16 (16%) 165 (35%)
Sometimes 60 (60%) 241 (52%)
Often 21 (21%) 23 (23%)
N = 100 N = 467
Overindulge self?
Never 8 (7%) 90 (15%)
Seldom 29 (24%) 229 (39%)
Sometimes 61 (50%) 239 (40%)
Often 24 (20%) 33 (6%)
N = 122 N = 591
Extended adult indulgent relationship?
Yes 55 (46%) 394 (68%)
No 64 (54%) 189 (32%)
N = 119 N = 583
____________________________________________________________________
*
Not all respondents answered all questions.
Discussion
Individuals self-identified as overindulged children reported experiencing
negative effects as a result of the indulgence, not only while it was occurring, but also
into adulthood.
One of the most consistent findings of this study was subjects attributing
overindulgence to inconsistent family environments, including homes in which abuse and
neglect were common. Although subjects reported some positive emotions while being
indulged, the indulgence produced negative feelings at the same time. Such ambivalent
and inconsistent feelings have been found to be difficult for children to interpret and have
a tendency to lead to feelings of insecurity and chaos (Sroufe, Fox & Pancake, 1983).
Reports of the high levels of physical and psychological violence in the
households where overindulgence occurred were disturbing. More than a fourth of the
ACO sample (27%) reported physical violence in their childhood homes. This is
substantially higher than reported national figures. The United States Advisory Board on
Child Abuse and Neglect (1990) indicated that 2.5 percent of American children are
maltreated each year, and child abuse accounts for approximately 14 percent of the
reported cases of child maltreatment nationally. Such violence always leaves a mark on
its victims (Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen, 1993), but in families where it is coupled
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 11
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
with overindulgence, the negative effect may be greater, again because of the difficulty
children have in predicting inconsistent parental response.
Since participants in the survey indicated that the overindulgence had negative
effects, it is disturbing that they were much more likely to overindulge both their own
children and themselves compared to the non-indulged subjects. Clearly, preventative
intervention from family and parent education programs for parents who are ACOs is
warranted.
One surprising finding was that ACOs reported being significantly less likely to
seek out and maintain additional overindulgent relationships in adulthood than did the
non-indulged subjects. This may indicate that ACOs are able to recognize the negative
impact of indulgent relationships and while they seemingly are unable to avoid
overindulging their own children or themselves, they do make efforts to avoid
relationships with others who would overindulge them.
Finally, a striking finding of this study was that the majority of the overindulged
and non-indulged subjects reported that their parents did not adequately meet their
emotional needs as children. This speaks to the importance of broad-based parent
education programs for all types of parents.
Implications
The findings of this study have numerous implications for both parents and family
educators.
Implications For Parents
It is essential for parents to understand that there is a difference between nurture,
structure, and overindulgence. Nurture is unconditional love. “[The] essential
contribution to children’s growth and well-being [is] nurture” (Clarke & Dawson, 1998,
p. 10). “But unconditional love is not enough. Children also need to learn limits, skills,
and standards” (Clarke & Dawson, 1998, p. 10). This side of the parenting equation,
structure, allows parents to set healthy boundaries and limits with children. There needs
to be a balance between the two. Overindulgence is misguided nurture and inadequate
structure. Nurturing children and providing them with structure is positive and helpful,
while overindulgence is not. This is relevant because ACOs report overindulgence is
more about “not having things done for them when they could do it for themselves,” and
“having no consistent chores expected of them” than receiving clothes or toys.
Parents need to realize that continued support for a child’s emotional needs
without overindulgence is critical to the emotional health of the child. Children
experience a variety of feelings from overindulgence; some of them positive, others
negative. At the very least, the overindulgent parent leaves a child emotionally confused.
Parents who overindulge miss opportunities to teach their children valuable life
skills. Overindulgence appears to inhibit the development of a child’s communication
and relationship skills, decision making, and time management skills. Further,
overindulged children may not know how to take on adult responsibilities. They rely on
others to complete tasks for them.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 12
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
It is important for parents to understand and recognize that overindulgence may
have long-lasting effects on children. For example, as adults they may have problems
with overeating, and overspending, feel inadequate and overindulge their own children.
The negative effects of overindulging can last well into adulthood.
Finally, parents who were overindulged as children frequently grow up and
overindulge their own children. There appears to be a “cycle of overindulgence.” This
could be because families in which overindulgence is occurring do not have a clear
understanding of appropriate boundaries or the delicate balance between nurture and
structure in the rearing of children.
Implications for Family Educators
It appears that cultural messages to overindulge are pervasive throughout North
American culture (Browne & Kaldenberg, 1997) and that overindulging children is a
common problem (Clarke & Dawson, 1998). Family educators need to recognize the
cultural pressure placed on parents to overindulge children in today’s society.
Recognizing this, family educators can provide parental support, encouragement and
permission not to indulge; for doing so may be harmful to a child’s psychological health.
Further, family educators can give parents an alternative message which is to balance
nurture and structure in childrearing.
This study found that a high percentage of ACOs (51%) grew up in families
which had chemically dependent parents, thus family educators should be aware of this
connection and its possible effects. Further, because overindulgence of a child is often
related to another important life event, such as a death of a sibling or parent, family
educators also need to build in support and education for parents who are confronted with
or experience these challenging events. Finally, information on overindulgence should
be made available to parents through a variety of sources: parenting books, parenting
classes, books on marriage and family, and books on child psychology.
Conclusion
This study is a first attempt at overcoming a gap in the literature on
overindulgence. Previously, only a few research studies investigated spoiling children,
whiled none investigated overindulgence directly. Further, the concept of overindulgence
is quite different from the spoiled child syndrome (Swain, 1985; McIntosh, 1989) and the
permissive parent which Baumrind (1966, 1983, 1991, & 1996) described.
This study has several limitations. The first limitation is its sample which, though
large, is not representative and is disproportionately female. The issue of overindulgence
may have been more salient for the sample than the general population. Second, the
coding of open-ended questions is always prone to subjectivity. And third, because the
questionnaire provided a description of overindulgence at the outset, it may have
inadvertently led respondents to a response set consistent with the definition.
Nonetheless, this study fulfilled its purposes: to describe overindulged persons,
their perceptions of overindulgence and its affects, and to compare adults who were
overindulged as children and those who were not. Future studies should attempt to
replicate these findings with representative samples.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 13
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
Finally, family educators face important challenges to help parents and families to
recognize the societal pressures placed on them to overindulge, and to help them to
develop alternative strategies to bring balance into their lives.
References
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37, 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1983). Rejoinder to Lewis’s reinterpretation of parental firm control
effects: Are authoritative families really harmonious? Psychological Bulletin, 94,
132-142.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn,
R. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 758-
772). New York: Garland.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-
414.
Browne, B. A., & Kaldenberg, D. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to
materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 31-55.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 271-282.
Clarke, J. I., & Dawson, C. (1998). Growing up again: Parenting ourselves, parenting our
children (2nd ed.). Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Coles, R. (1977). Privileged ones: The well-off and the rich in America Volume V of
children in crisis. Boston: Little Brown.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.
Hausner, L. (1990). Children of paradise: Successful parenting for prosperous families.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Malinosky-Rummell, R., & Hansen, D. J. (1993). Long-term consequences of childhood
physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 68-79.
McIntosch, B. J. (1989). Spoiled child syndrome. Pediatrics, 83(1), 108-115.
Nelms, B. C. (1983, January/February). Attachment versus spoiling. Pediatric Nursing,
49-51.
Robinson, P. A. (1978). Parents of “beyond control” adolescents. Adolescence, 13, 109-
119.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-
rejection theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rohner, R. P. (1994). Patterns of parenting: The warmth dimension in worldwide
perspective. In W. J. Lonner & Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and culture. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Solomon, R., Martin, K., & Cottington, E. (1993). Spoiling an infant: Further support for
the construct. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 13(2), 175-183.
Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. E., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and dependency in
developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-1627.
Swain, D. W. (1985). The spoiled child syndrome. In P. Houston; G. K. Leigh; I. R.
Loewen & D. M. McNulty (Eds.), Changing family conference XIV proceedings
(pp. 67-71). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 14
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Volume 16, Number 2, Fall/Winter, 1998
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1990). Child abuse and neglect:
Critical first steps in response to a national emergency. Washington, DC:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wilson, A. L., Witzke, D. B., & Volin, A. (1981). What it means to “spoil” a baby.
Clinical Pediatrics, 20, 728-802.
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education. Republished @
www.overindulgence.info by permission of the copyright holder. All rights reserved. No
portion of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without permission from the
copyright holder. Direct questions to:
Dr. Helen C. Hall, Managing Editor, JFCSE
School of Leadership & Lifelong Learning
University of Georgia
203 River’s Crossing
Athens, GA 30602-4809
© Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education Page 15
