Kuppens Sofie, Ceulemans Eva
1Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
2Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Child Fam Stud. 2019;28(1):168-181. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
Although parenting styles constitute a well-known concept in parenting research, two issues have largely been overlooked in existing studies. In particular, the psychological control dimension has rarely been explicitly modelled and there is limited insight into joint parenting styles that simultaneously characterize maternal and paternal practices and their impact on child development. Using data from a sample of 600 Flemish families raising an 8-to-10 year old child, we identified naturally occurring joint parenting styles. A cluster analysis based on two parenting dimensions (parental support and behavioral control) revealed four congruent parenting styles: an authoritative, positive authoritative, authoritarian and uninvolved parenting style. A subsequent cluster analysis comprising three parenting dimensions (parental support, behavioral and psychological control) yielded similar cluster profiles for the congruent (positive) authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, while the fourth parenting style was relabeled as a congruent intrusive parenting style. ANOVAs demonstrated that having (positive) authoritative parents associated with the most favorable outcomes, while having authoritarian parents coincided with the least favorable outcomes. Although less pronounced than for the authoritarian style, having intrusive parents also associated with poorer child outcomes. Results demonstrated that accounting for parental psychological control did not yield additional parenting styles, but enhanced our understanding of the pattern among the three parenting dimensions within each parenting style and their association with child outcomes. More similarities than dissimilarities in the parenting of both parents emerged, although adding psychological control slightly enlarged the differences between the scores of mothers and fathers.
尽管育儿方式在育儿研究中是一个广为人知的概念，但现有研究在很大程度上忽略了两个问题。具体而言，心理控制维度很少被明确建模，对于同时刻画母亲和父亲育儿行为及其对儿童发展影响的共同育儿方式的了解也很有限。我们使用来自600个抚养8至10岁孩子的佛兰芒家庭样本的数据，确定了自然出现的共同育儿方式。基于两个育儿维度（父母支持和行为控制）的聚类分析揭示了四种一致的育儿方式：权威型、积极权威型、专制型和放任型育儿方式。随后基于三个育儿维度（父母支持、行为和心理控制）的聚类分析，得出了一致（积极）权威型和专制型育儿方式相似的聚类概况，而第四种育儿方式被重新标记为一致的侵入型育儿方式。方差分析表明，拥有（积极）权威型父母与最有利的结果相关，而拥有专制型父母则与最不利的结果相关。虽然不如专制型育儿方式明显，但拥有侵入型父母也与较差的儿童结果相关。结果表明，考虑父母的心理控制并没有产生额外的育儿方式，但增强了我们对每种育儿方式中三个育儿维度之间模式及其与儿童结果关联的理解。父母育儿方式的相似之处多于不同之处，尽管加入心理控制略微扩大了母亲和父亲得分之间的差异。
