Content uploaded by Duane Rudy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Duane Rudy on Feb 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING
Measures of authoritarianism, collectivism, warmth, anger, attributions for children’s misbehavior, and
parental feelings of control over failure were administered to Egyptian Canadian and Anglo-Canadian men
and women living in Canada. The Egyptian Canadians were higher on authoritarianism, collectivism, anger,
and the men were higher on perceived control over failure. The best predictor of authoritarian parenting for
the Egyptian Canadian group was collectivism. For the Anglo-Canadian group, the best predictors were col
-
lectivism and lack of warmth. Differences in the meaning of authoritarianism in collectivist and individual
-
ist groups and their meaning for the transmission of values are discussed: Higher levels of authoritarianism
are not necessarily accompanied by overall lower levels of warmth; more negative (dispositional) attribu
-
tions about children; or more automatic, maladaptive, and inflexible processing of information. Thus, the
conditions that promote transmission of values—warmth and benign ways of thinking—are just as likely to
be present in groups using authoritarian parenting.
CORRELATES OF AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING
IN INDIVIDUALIST AND COLLECTIVIST CULTURES
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE TRANSMISSION OF VALUES
DUANE RUDY
JOAN E. GRUSEC
University of Toronto
Psychologists have traditionally believed that the transmission of values or standards of
acceptable behavior is most effectively accomplished when children see those values and
standards as self-generated or autonomously chosen, rather than imposed by agents of
socialization. Values must be adhered to in the absence of external surveillance, of hope of
reward, or fear of punishment. Otherwise, those values have not been effectively transmitted.
Parenting approaches that promote feelings of independence from the source of transmis
-
sion, therefore, have been seen as most facilitative of the transmission process. With respect
to parenting styles, for example, it has been argued that authoritarian parenting, character
-
ized by the imposition of an absolute set of standards, the valuing of obedience and respect
for authority, and the discouragement of give-and-take, is detrimental to socialization
because it fails to encourage the child’s feelings of autonomy (e.g., Baumrind, 1971).
Authoritative parenting, characterized by firm control, high demands for maturity, and a
willingness to reason and negotiate, is seen to create a more effective familial environment in
which to transmit values because it facilitates the child’s internalization or feelings of
self-generation.
The demonstrated link between authoritative parenting and high levels of internalization
of values, and authoritarian parenting and low levels of internalization (e.g., Dekoviç &
Janssens, 1992; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989) appears to be strongest in a middle-class, Anglo-
European context. In other cultural contexts, authoritarian parenting is more likely to be the
202
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation and was supported by a grant from
the Social Science and Humanities Research Council to the second author. We are indebted to the individuals who participated in this
research and to Maha El-Gazzar, Michelle Olliviere, and Joel Brody, who collected the data.
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 32 No. 2, March 2001 202-212
© 2001 Western Washington University
norm and less likely to be associated with negative child outcomes. For example, African
American mothers in high-risk environments may employ authoritarian techniques because
it is more important for children to obey parental injunctions without question, given that the
consequences of disobedience may be quite serious (Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992). Per
-
haps not coincidentally, the use of corporal punishment has been found to be associated with
externalizing behavior in Anglo-American families but not in African American families
(Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Petit, 1996). As another example, Chinese mothers score
higher on measures of authoritarianism than do American mothers (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch,
Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987) and are described as more restrictive (Chiu,
1987). However, there is little evidence that this (or any other) cultural group’s greater reli
-
ance on authoritarian parenting interferes with the effective internalization of values.
The question, then, is why authoritarian parenting does not work in Western European
contexts but appears to be less detrimental in other cultures. One possibility is that authorita
-
tive parenting is most effective in transmitting values in individualist (e.g., North American,
Western European) societies because, in these contexts, it is important for individuals to
assert themselves and actively pursue their own wishes and needs (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). If self-assertion is the basis for social interaction, it becomes important for individuals
to conceive of themselves as behaving freely in responsible ways because of some inner
dispositional quality. It may thus be important to minimize the salience of external demands
to create feelings of autonomy. In collectivist cultures, however, self-assertion is negatively
valued, and individuals are required to align themselves with a larger in-group; it is necessary
to inhibit the expression of self-interest and attend to the needs and wishes of others. In turn,
it is expected that others in the in-group will work to fulfill one’s own needs (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Also, respect for authority is an important feature of socialization
(Hofstede, 1983; Schwartz, 1994). Under these conditions, the goal of parenting is not auton-
omy but rather the promotion of interdependence, cooperation, compliance without discus-
sion, and inhibition of personal wishes. Parents may therefore engage in apparently authori-
tarian behavior but in the interests of the child’s socialization. However, this does not need to
interfere with the effective transmission of values. Recently, Grusec, Goodnow, and
Kuczynksi (2000) have argued that a feature of successful socialization may be an internal
dialogue, be it with one’s own conscience or with a particular audience (e.g., one’s own par
-
ents). The difference between the promotion of autonomy and interdependence, then, might
simply be a difference in the kind of audience to which one becomes attuned. Rather than to
the self it could be to other members of the group, with no reason to expect that self-regula
-
tion and internalization would be less strong with one rather than the other.
Why does authoritarian parenting have negative outcomes for the transmission of values
in middle-class Anglo-European contexts? One reason, of course, is that it detracts from
autonomy, which is highly valued. We suggest, as well, that in the Anglo-European context,
it is not a deliberate approach that is made in the best interests of the child. Indeed, it is associ
-
ated with a number of features that may be harmful to the child and ultimately responsible for
maladaptive child outcomes, including a failure to internalize values.
First, authoritarian parenting is associated with parental rejection and lack of warmth
(Baumrind, 1967), and warmth is one important factor motivating children to follow parental
wishes (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Second, authoritarian parents tend to make dispositional
attributions for children’s misdeeds (Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989); that is, they hold
them responsible and accountable for their actions rather than seeing their actions as an out
-
come of external or situational circumstances. As a result, they are angrier, they are less
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING 203
likely to use teaching interventions such as reasoning that might make appropriate behavior
clearer to the child, and they are more likely to derogate and humiliate the child—a verbal
manifestation of perceived dispositional characteristics of that child (Dix & Grusec, 1985).
A third negative associate of authoritarian parenting in individualist cultures is parental feel
-
ings of low control (Bugental, Brown, & Reiss, 1996). Mothers who are abusive or coercive
(authoritarian) with their children feel threatened by difficult children and believe they have
little control over problem interactions with them relative to the control the child has. These
mothers unconsciously display negative affect, show cognitive deficits when primed to think
about difficult interactions, and display confusing behavior that causes children to become
less responsive and compliant (Bugental & Shennum, 1984). All these correlates of
Anglo-European authoritarian parenting, then, may be at least partially the direct cause of
negative child outcomes, rather than the authoritarian parenting itself.
In sum, then, in individualist contexts where authoritarian parenting is proscribed, it may
be more likely to occur when a rejecting parent automatically interprets a child’s problematic
behavior as willful noncompliance and reacts with coerciveness to establish parental author
-
ity. In contrast, authoritarian parenting in collectivist cultures may be a more conscious strat
-
egy pursued for the child’s benefit and hence more open to conscious reflection and more
flexible in nature. It is also less likely to be associated with negative parental affect and nega-
tive interpretations of children’s behavior. These differences can be expected to have a num-
ber of important consequences for the child’s internalization of parental values. First, if
authoritarian parenting is conscious rather than automatic, parents may better adjust their
behavior to the child’s state and needs because they will not have difficulties with processing
information. Therefore, they should be more likely to communicate their values effectively
to their children and hence promote their internalization of these values. Second, if they are
warmer and less angry, they should have a better relationship with their children who would
be motivated to attend to their directives, to follow their injunctions, and to adapt their stan-
dards. Finally, Dix (1993) has argued that children will exhibit behavior consonant with
parental expectations. If, in collectivist contexts, authoritarian parenting is associated with
more positive parental attributions, children may be likely to fulfill their parents’ relatively
positive expectations. Indeed, in keeping with this argument, we note that although Chinese
parents score higher on measures of authoritarianism the child is seen as inherently good (Ho &
Kang, 1984).
The present study was an attempt to test some of these ideas by comparing the patterns of
associations between parental authoritarianism and parental affective and cognitive vari
-
ables thought to be relevant for internalization. We examined these associations in an Egyp
-
tian Canadian and an Anglo-Canadian sample. The Egyptian Canadian sample was chosen
because Arabic cultural groups have been found to score relatively high on measures of col
-
lectivism (Buda & Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998; Hofstede, 1983; Oyserman, 1993). Our aim was
twofold: First, we wished to compare Egyptian Canadians with Anglo Canadians at the
group level and see if the expected higher levels of authoritarianism in the Egyptian Cana
-
dian group would indeed not be accompanied by lower levels of warmth, more negative attri
-
butions, and feelings of low relative control. Second, we sought to compare whether the pat
-
terns of association between parental authoritarianism and other parental variables within
the two groups would differ, with authoritarianism related to low levels of warmth, greater
anger, low levels of perceived control, and more dispositional attributions in the Anglo-
Canadian group, but related only to levels of collectivism in the Egyptian Canadian groups.
204 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
METHOD
SAMPLES
Thirty-three Egyptian Canadians (19 female and 14 male; 26 parents and 7 nonparents)
and 31 Anglo-Canadians (24 female and 7 male; 21 parents and 10 nonparents), ranging
from 18 to 62 years of age, participated in the study. Nine Egyptian Canadians and 13
Anglo-Canadians had some university experience or less and 24 Egyptian Canadians and 18
Anglo-Canadians had an undergraduate degree or more. These differences were not signifi
-
cant, χ
2
= 1.5, p > .20. The samples also did not differ significantly in age (mean age for
Egyptian Canadians: 39.3 years, SD = 11.07; for European-Canadians: 38.21 years, SD =
11.36).
Twenty-four of the Egyptian Canadians had immigrated to Canada themselves; all were
parents. Nine Egyptian Canadians were born in Canada and had parents who had immigrated
to Canada; 2 of these were parents. Participants in the Anglo-Canadian group were all of
Western European background; 6 had immigrated to Canada themselves (all were parents),
13 had parents who had immigrated to Canada (7 of these were parents), 5 had grandparents
who had immigrated to Canada (4 of these were parents), and 4 had great-grandparents who
had immigrated to Canada (all were parents). Three people in the Anglo-Canadian group did
not report recency of immigration.
MEASURES
Participants filled out two measures of collectivist thought. The first scale, labeled Col-
lect, measured collectivism with respect to the nuclear and extended family. Selected items
were taken from the Parent (e.g., “Teenagers should listen to their parents’ advice on dating”)
and Kin (e.g., “I would help, within my means, if a relative told me that he or she is in finan-
cial difficulty”) subscales of Hui’s (1988) Individualism-Collectivism Scale and from the
Bardis Familism Scale (e.g., “A person should always support his or her uncles or aunts if
they are in need”) (Rao & Rao, 1979).
The second scale asked questions reflecting collectivist concerns in raising children. We
developed this scale as an attempt to assess participants’ sense of the importance of collectiv
-
ism and deference to authority to succeeding in life. At the top of the questionnaire, the
phrase “To succeed in life, it is important to:” was written, followed by three items reflecting
collectivism (e.g., “Pay attention to the feelings of others”) and two items reflecting defer
-
ence to authority (e.g., “Respect the opinions of one’s superiors”). This scale was labeled
Success.
Participants completed a measure of parental authoritarianism that was composed of
Likert-type scale items taken from two measures. The first measure was created by
Kochanska, Kuczynski, and Radke-Yarrow (1989) and consists of three subscales taken
from the Block Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR) (Block, 1981). These subscales are
labeled Authoritarian Control, Supervision of the Child, and Control by Anxiety Induction.
The measure was derived conceptually; however, it is related to observed coercive child-
rearing behavior (Dekoviç, Janssens, & Gerris, 1991; Kochanska et al., 1989). Five addi
-
tional items were taken from a scale developed by Slater and Power (1987). The questions
from this scale are a subset of items related to restrictiveness, found by Rickel and Biasatti
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING 205
(1982), who performed a principal components analysis on the CRPR and identified two
main factors: nurturance (discussed below) and restrictiveness (a sample item: “I believe that
children should be seen and not heard”). The questionnaire from which this subscale was
taken is significantly related to children’s behavioral and social problems as assessed by the
Child Behavior Checklist (Slater & Power, 1987).
A measure of warmth and nurturance was also administered. Items from two scales com
-
prised this measure. The first scale was the CRPR subscale “Open Expression of Affect”
(OPENEX). One item from this measure was omitted because it is not related to parental
warmth (“When I am angry with my child, I let him or her know it”). The remaining items all
assess parental warmth (e.g., “I express affection by hugging, kissing, and holding my
child”). The second scale was Slater and Power’s (1987) Nurturance scale, taken from the
Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI). Items for this subscale are a subset of the items from
the CRPR items that loaded highly on the Nurturance factor found by Rickel and Biasatti
(1982). This scale had one item in common with the OPENEX scale; however, whereas the
latter scale is limited to emotion, the former contains items that assess parental responsivity
and interest in the child (e.g., “I respect my child’s opinions and encourage him or her to
express them”). All items on the authoritarian and warmth and nurturance scales contained a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).
Parental feelings of control in difficult interactions with children were assessed with the
Parental Attribution Test (PAT) (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989). The PAT asks respon-
dents to imagine that they have taken care of a neighbor’s child and that the two of them did
not get along well; it then asks respondents to rate how important a number of possible rea-
sons might be for the experience. Participants respond to 12 items in total; 3 items represent
four different factors. The factors are causes controllable by the child (e.g., “the extent to
which the child was stubborn and resisted your efforts”), causes not controllable by the child
(e.g., “whether the child was tired or not feeling too well”), causes controllable by the adult
(e.g., “whether you used the wrong approach for this child”), and causes not controllable by
the adult (e.g., “the extent to which you were not feeling well on that day”). All items are
rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not important at all,7=very important). These items yield
scores for Child Control Over Failure (CCF), determined by taking the average rating of
items controllable by the child and subtracting the average ratings of items not controllable
by the child, and Adult Control Over Failure (ACF), determined by taking the average ratings
of items controllable by the adult and subtracting the average ratings of items not controlla
-
ble by the adult. A score measuring the relative perceived balance of control between parent
and child, Perceived Control Over Failure (PCF), is obtained by subtracting CCF from ACF.
The PAT is related to differential reactions to difficult and relatively responsive children in
both mothers and nonparental women (Bugental et al., 1989).
Negative attributions and anger in the discipline situation were measured with vignettes.
Participants read four descriptions of hypothetical interactions they might have had with a
7-year-old child who was misbehaving in some way. They were asked to imagine that the
child was theirs. The four interactions were the following: The parent notices the child taking
money from the kitchen table, the child watches television without first cleaning up as prom
-
ised, the child does not obey the parent’s request to put a bicycle away, and the child hits a
playmate. For each vignette, participants were asked if the child knew he or she was acting
badly or improperly, if the child thought his or her behavior would upset the parent, if they
thought their child’s behavior was due to the child’s personality or the situation, if they
thought it would be reasonable to expect their child to know better, and how much blame
their child deserved. Participants were also asked to indicate how angry they would be. All
206 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
ratings were on a 7-point scale, with 1 being the most benign and 7 the most negative. Ratings
were averaged across scenarios.
The ratings for attributional questions were averaged across vignettes. With the exception
of the item assessing situational and personality factors, they were highly intercorrelated
(except for the situational/personality item, correlations ranged from .37 to .75 in the Egyp
-
tian Canadian group and from .66 to .75 in the Anglo-Canadian group; all correlations p <
.05). All attributional items except the situational/personality item therefore were combined
into one measure (analyses using a measure containing all attributional items yielded virtu
-
ally identical results).
PROCEDURE
Participants provided information concerning their age, sex, education, and cultural
background. They then completed the four vignettes (presented in random order); the Suc
-
cess scale; the Collect scale; the PAT; and a questionnaire that contained the items assessing
authoritarianism, warmth, and nurturance. Participants were asked to fill out the question
-
naires keeping a 7-year-old child in mind (the sex of the child was randomly assigned) and to
imagine that it was their child.
RESULTS
BETWEEN-GROUP DIFFERENCES
Prior to testing sample differences, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted on all the variables to test whether parents differed from nonparents. The
MANOVA revealed no overall effect of parental status. Because parental status was not
important in participants’ responses, all other analyses were conducted without considering
the parental status of the participants.
A 2 (group membership) × 2 (sex of participant) × 2 (sex of child) MANOVA was then
conducted on the measures on which the cultural groups were hypothesized to differ—the
authoritarian scale and the two measures of collectivism. A similar MANOVA was con
-
ducted on the measures that the groups were hypothesized not to differ on—warmth, PCF,
negative attributions, and anger. The results of both MANOVAs for the sample effect were
significant, Wilks’s λ = 0.69, F(3, 54) = 8.24, p < .001 for the authoritarian and collectivism
measures; Wilks’s λ = 0.66, F(4, 53) = 6.72, p < .001 for the remaining measures. There were
no significant effects involving sex of child or sex of parent in either MANOVA. Table 1
reports the means and standard deviations for the parenting measures for both cultural
groups.
The univariate tests for the first MANOVA showed that, as expected, there was a signifi
-
cant effect of sample on authoritarianism. Egyptian Canadians scored higher than Anglo-
Canadians, F(1, 56) = 21.66, p < .001. Egyptian Canadians also scored higher on both of the
collectivist measures, F(1, 56) = 10.72, p < .005; F(1, 56) = 7.79, p < .01 for the Collect and
Success scales, respectively.
As expected, the univariate tests for the second MANOVA revealed no significant differ
-
ence between the two groups in warmth and nurturance. There was a significant sample
effect for PCF: Egyptian Canadians reported higher feelings of control over difficult
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING 207
parent-child interactions than Anglo-Canadians, F(1, 56) = 16.92, p < .001. This was quali-
fied by a Sample × Sex of Parent interaction; post hoc t tests revealed that Egyptian Canadian
men scored higher than Anglo-Canadian men (Ms = 1.01, –0.62; SDs = 1.25, 0.72 for Egyp-
tian Canadian and Anglo-Canadian groups, respectively), t(19) = 3.17, p < .005. Mean PCF
scores for Egyptian Canadian women were higher than for Anglo-Canadian women, but the
means were not significantly different (Ms = 0.40, 0.02; SDs = 0.78, 0.73 for Egyptian Cana-
dian and Anglo-Canadian groups, respectively), t(41) = 1.62, p < .12. As expected, there was
also no difference between the two groups in negative attributions. There was, however, an
unexpected significant effect for anger: Egyptian Canadians reported greater feelings of
anger in response to the vignettes than did Anglo-Canadians, F(1, 56) = 4.43, p < .05.
WITHIN-GROUP ASSOCIATIONS
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated within cultural groups for the measure of
authoritarianism with the following scales: Collect, Success, Warmth and Nurturance, PCF,
Negative Attributions, and Anger. Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for the Egyp
-
tian Canadian and Anglo-Canadian groups. In line with our predictions, there was a trend for
the measure of collectivism regarding family and kin—Collect—to be associated with
parental authoritarianism in the Egyptian Canadian sample; this association was not signifi
-
cant in the Anglo-Canadian sample. The Success scale was related to authoritarianism in
both samples, although this relationship was much stronger in the Egyptian Canadian sam
-
ple. As predicted, warmth was significantly (negatively) associated with authoritarianism in
the Anglo-Canadian but not the Egyptian Canadian group. Also consonant with our predic
-
tions, there was a trend for PCF to be negatively associated with parental authoritarianism in
the Anglo-Canadian group; no such trend was evident in the Egyptian Canadian group. Con
-
trary to our expectations, there were no significant correlations between authoritarianism
and negative attributions within either cultural group. Also unexpected, parental anger was
positively associated with authoritarianism in the Egyptian Canadian but not the Anglo-
Canadian group.
z scores were calculated to determine if the correlation coefficients differed as a function
of cultural group. The only significantly different correlations were those between authori-
208 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Parenting
Measures as a Function of Cultural Group
Cultural Group
Egyptian Canadian Anglo-Canadian
MSD MSD
Authoritarianism*** 4.5 (0.79) 3.4 (0.73)
Collectivism*** 5.2 (0.54) 4.6 (0.49)
Collectivism/success in life*** 5.8 (0.77) 5.2 (0.74)
Warmth/nurturance 6.4 (0.50) 6.3 (0.63)
Perceived control over failure*** 0.66 (1.04) –0.12 (0.77)
Negative attributions 4.1 (0.96) 4.3 (0.94)
Anger** 4.1 (1.05) 3.4 (0.95)
**p < .05. ***p < .01.
tarianism and warmth. In this case, there was a negative relationship between authoritarian-
ism and warmth in the Anglo sample and a nonsignificant positive relationship between
these variables in the Egyptian Canadian sample.
REGRESSION ANALYSES WITHIN GROUPS
Stepwise regression analyses were performed within each sample to determine what
combination of predictors could best predict parental authoritarianism. Parental affective
and cognitive variables (warmth, feelings of control in difficult interactions, negative attribu-
tions, and anger in the discipline situation) as well as the measures of collectivism were
tested; all other variables (such as level of education, parental status) were not considered.
Table 2 reports the best models for the Egyptian Canadian and Anglo-Canadian groups; Fig
-
ure 1 presents these models pictorially. For each group, two predictors best predicted paren
-
tal authoritarianism. For the Egyptian Canadian group, the best model contained the two col
-
lectivism scales; the other predictors did not account for variance, given the two collectivism
scales. The betas for both of these predictors were positive, indicating a positive relation
-
ship between both measures of collectivism and parental authoritarianism. For the Anglo-
Canadian group, the best model contained the measure of warmth and nurturance and the
Collect scale; the other predictors did not account for variance at an alpha level of less than
.15, given the two predictors already entered. As expected, the beta for the measure of
warmth and nurturance was negative, indicating a negative relationship between parental
warmth and parental authoritarianism. As with the Egyptian Canadian group, the beta for the
Collect scale was positive.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that higher levels of parental authoritarianism in
non-Anglo cultural groups may not necessarily be accompanied by more negative ways of
thinking and feeling about children. Thus, the Egyptian Canadian group scored higher than
the Anglo-Canadian group on authoritarianism but did not differ in levels of warmth or
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING 209
TABLE 2
Correlations of Parental Authoritarianism With Measures of Parental Affect
and Cognition, and Standardized Betas in the Stepwise Regression Analyses of
Parental Authoritarianism on Parental Affective and Cognitive Predictors
Cultural Group
Egyptian Canadian Anglo-Canadian
Authoritarianism and Pearson r β Pearson r β Z Value
Collectivism .32* .30* .27 .39* 0.21
Collectivism/success in life .65** .64*** .38** 1.43
Warmth/nurturance .19 –.50*** –.58** 2.82***
Perceived control over failure –.01 –.31* 1.25
Negative attributions .02 .04 0.08
Anger .42** .19 0.97
*p < .10. **p < 05. ***p < .01.
maladaptive thinking about children in the discipline situation. In fact, Egyptian Canadian
men scored higher than men in the Anglo-Canadian group in perceived control over difficult
parent-child interactions. These findings mean that the higher levels of authoritarianism that
often characterize parents from collectivist cultural groups (e.g., Chao, 1994; Harwood,
Schoelmerich, Schulze, & Gonzalez, 1999) are not necessarily accompanied by overall
lower levels of warmth; more negative (dispositional) attributions about children; or more
automatic, maladaptive, and inflexible processing of information. Thus, the conditions that
promote transmission of values—warmth and benign ways of thinking—are just as likely to
be present in these groups. The possibility that parental authoritarianism in collectivist
groups is more conscious and considered means that this parenting may not be as deleterious
for the transmission of values as might otherwise be assumed.
Further support for our argument is provided by the pattern of correlations between
authoritarianism and other parenting variables. Warmth was negatively associated with
authoritarianism in the Anglo-Canadian but not the Egyptian Canadian group, and there was
a trend for PCF scores to be negatively associated in the Anglo-Canadian group, whereas
there was no such association for the Egyptian Canadians. Higher levels of authoritarianism
within the Egyptian Canadian group were best predicted by collectivist concerns with
respect to success in life and the family. The best predictors for the Anglo-Canadian group
were lower levels of warmth and higher levels of collectivism within the family. Thus, there
was some evidence that authoritarianism is more likely to be linked with negative affect and
maladaptive thinking in the individualist but not the collectivist group.
Some parenting variables did not relate to authoritarianism as predicted. Authoritarian
-
ism was not associated with dispositional attributions in either group and was associated
with parental anger only in the Egyptian Canadian sample. With respect to anger, it should be
noted that higher levels of anger with a misbehaving child (as assessed by the vignettes) do
not necessarily indicate an overall emotional context that is generally angry. It does mean
that when children misbehave and show disrespect for authority, parents in collectivist cul
-
tures who are strict with children will be upset with them. If the overall affective context is
relatively positive, parental anger may serve to make salient the parent’s displeasure with the
child’s misbehavior. If the anger is conveyed in a relatively controlled, thoughtful manner,
the child may more readily perceive and heed the parental message, and values may be more
210 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Figure 1: Best Models for Parental Authoritarianism Within Cultural Groups (Egyptian Canadian solid
lines, Anglo-Canadian dashed lines) as Determined by Stepwise Regression
Collectivism
Collectivism /
Success
in Life
Lack of
Warmth /
Nurturance
Perceived
Control over
Failure
Negative
Attributions
Parental
Authoritarianism
effectively transmitted (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). In fact, the anger of Egyptian Canadians
was not undifferentiated. When misdeeds in the vignettes were grouped into less serious
(forgetting to put away a bicycle and watching television without cleaning up) and more seri
-
ous scenarios (hitting a playmate and stealing money), the association of parental authoritar
-
ianism with anger in the Egyptian Canadian sample was significant for the more serious (r =
.46, p < .01) but not the less serious (r = .21, ns) scenarios. (The corresponding correlations
were both nonsignificant in the Anglo-Canadian sample.) Similarly, the main effect of cul
-
tural group on levels of anger was significant for the relatively serious, F(1, 56) = 9.67, p <
.05, but not the less serious scenarios, F(1, 56) = 0.32, ns. This pattern of findings supports
the idea that the higher levels of anger in the Egyptian Canadian group are relatively differen
-
tiated and specific to serious misbehaviors.
It should be noted that collectivist concerns regarding success in life also characterized
parental authoritarianism in the Anglo-Canadian group, although less strongly. This sug
-
gests that collectivist concerns may distinguish parental authoritarianism to some degree in
Western European groups as well. To the extent that it reflects these concerns and not more
negative ways of thinking and feeling about children, it is possible that the effects of parental
authoritarianism in West European cultural groups may be less harmful for the transmission
of values. This suggestion merits closer research attention and points to the importance of
distinguishing between different forms of authoritarianism in a Western cultural context
rather than making broad generalizations about conditions that facilitate children’s acquisi-
tion of standards of behavior. Such attention may help to sharpen understanding of parenting
styles and increase the ability of researchers to understand the most effective ways values are
transmitted from one generation to another.
REFERENCES
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 75, 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, Pt. 2),
1-103.
Block, J. H. (1981). The child-rearing practices report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the description of parental
socialization attitudes and values. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Human Development, University of
California, Berkeley.
Buda, R., & Elsayed-Elkhouly, S. M. (1998). Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans: Individualism-
collectivism revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 487-492.
Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for
child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532-539.
Bugental, D. B., Brown, M., & Reiss, C. (1996). Cognitive representations of power in caregiving relationships:
Biasing effects on interpersonal interaction and information processing. Journal of Family Psychology, 10,
397-407.
Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. A. (1984). “Difficult” children as elicitors and targets of adult communication pat
-
terns: An attributional-behavioral transactional analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 49 (1, Serial No. 205), 1-79.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting
through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chiu, L. H. (1987). Child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Chinese-American, and Anglo-American mothers. Interna
-
tional Journal of Psychology, 22, 409-419.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among African-American
and European-American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing behaviours. Developmental Psychology,
32, 1065-1072.
Dekoviç, M., & Janssens, J.M.A.M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child’s sociometric status. Develop
-
mental Psychology, 28, 925-932.
Rudy, Grusec / AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING 211
Dekoviç, M., Janssens, J.M.A.M., & Gerris, J.R.M. (1991). Factor structure and construct validity of the Block
Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment, 3, 182-187.
Dix, T. (1993). Attributing dispositions to children: An interactional analysis of attribution in socialization. Person
-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 633-643.
Dix, T. H., & Grusec, J. E. (1985). Parental attribution processes in child socialization. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental
belief systems: Their psychological consequences for children (pp. 201-233). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers’ implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent
effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting
style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of val
-
ues: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.
Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of parenting contributions to chil
-
dren’s internalization of values. Child Development, 71, 205-211.
Harwood, R. L., Schoelmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gonzalez, Z. (1999). Cultural differences in maternal beliefs
and behaviors: A study of middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday situations.
Child Development, 70, 1005-1016.
Ho, D.Y.F., & Kang, T. K. (1984). Intergenerational comparisons of child-rearing attitudes and practice in Hong
Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1004-1016.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18, 285-305.
Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17-36.
Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income Black
mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582.
Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between mothers’ self-reported and
observed child-rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56-63.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 993-1009.
Rao, V. V., & Rao, V. M. (1979). An evaluation of the Bardis Familsm Scale in India. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41, 417-421.
Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child-Rearing Practices Report. Journal of Clini-
cal Psychology, 38, 129-134.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and
applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slater, M. A., & Power, T. G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in single-parent families. In J. P.
Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (pp. 197-228). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Duane Rudy is currently an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He received his
Ph.D. from the University of Toronto in 1999.
Joan E. Grusec is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Canada. She has served on the edi
-
torial boards of professional journals and is currently the associate editor of Developmental Psychology.
She is coauthor of three previous books, including Development: History, Theory, and Research (New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1988).
212 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
