THIS IS AN ARTICLE EXPOSING DIFFERENT PARENTING MODULES AND HOW IT AFFECTS THEIR OFFSPRING.
By Oliver Samuel
Its quite normal to know that the parenting style adopted by a parent affects the child the borne both socially, mentally and other wise .in this part ,I’ll like to state the different parenting modules(styles) which parents tend to adopt and how it affects their kids. Before I proceed,I’ll like to explain the meaning of parenting .
WHAT IS PARENTING?
Parenting or child rearing is the process of promoting and supporting the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development of a child from infancy to adulthood. Parenting refers to the aspects of raising a child aside from the biological relationship.
The most common caretaker in parenting is the biological parent(s) of the child in question, although others may be an older sibling, a grandparent, a legal guardian, aunt, uncle or other family member, or a family friend.Governments and society may have a role in child-rearing as well. In many cases, orphanedor abandoned children receive parental care from non-parent blood relations. Others may be adopted, raised in foster care, or placed in an orphanage. Parenting skills vary, and a parent with good parenting skills may be referred to as a good parent.
The English pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott described the concept of “good-enough” parenting in which a minimum of prerequisites for healthy child development are met. Winnicott wrote, “The good-enough mother…starts off with an almost complete adaptation to her infant’s needs, and as time proceeds she adapts less and less completely, gradually, according to the infant’s growing ability to deal with her failure.”Views on the characteristics that make one a good or “good-enough” parent vary from culture to culture. Additionally, research has supported that parental history both in terms of attachments of varying quality as well as parental psychopathology, particularly in the wake of adverse experiences, can strongly influence parental sensitivity and child outcomes.
A parenting style is the overall emotional climate in the home.Developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind identified three main parenting styles in early child development: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive.These parenting styles were later expanded to four, including an uninvolved style. These four styles of parenting involve combinations of acceptance and responsiveness on the one hand and demand and control on the other.
Recent research has found that parenting style is significantly related to children’s subsequent mental health and well-being. In particular, authoritative parenting is positively related to mental health and satisfaction with life, and authoritarian parenting is negatively related to these variables.
Authoritative parenting described by Baumrind as the “just right” style, in combines a medium level demands on the child and a medium level responsiveness from the parents. Authoritative parents rely on positive reinforcement and infrequent use of punishment. Parents are more aware of a child’s feelings and capabilities and support the development of a child’s autonomy within reasonable limits. There is a give-and-take atmosphere involved in parent-child communication and both control and support are balanced. Research[vague] shows that this style is more beneficial than the too-hard authoritarian style or the too-soft permissive style. An example of authoritative parenting would be the parents talking to their child about their emotions.
Authoritarian parenting styles authoritarian parents are very rigid and strict. They place high demands on the child, but are not responsive to the child. Parents who practice authoritarian style parenting have a rigid set of rules and expectations that are strictly enforced and require rigid obedience. When the rules are not followed, punishment is most often used to promote future obedience.There is usually no explanation of punishment except that the child is in trouble for breaking a rule. This parenting style is more strongly associated with corporal punishment, such as spanking. “Because I said so” is a typical response to a child’s question of authority. This type of authority is used more often in working-class families than the middle class. In 1983 Diana Baumrind found that children raised in an authoritarian-style home were less cheerful, more moody and more vulnerable to stress. In many cases these children also demonstrated passive hostility. An example of authoritarian parenting would be the parents harshly punishing their children and disregarding their children’s feelings and emotions.
Permissive parenting permissive or indulgent parenting is more popular in middle-class families than in working-class families. In these family settings, a child’s freedom and autonomy are highly valued, and parents tend to rely mostly on reasoning and explanation. Parents are undemanding, so there tends to be little, if any punishment or explicit rules in this style of parenting. These parents say that their children are free from external constraints and tend to be highly responsive to whatever the child wants at the moment. Children of permissive parents are generally happy but sometimes show low levels of self-control and self-reliance because they lack structure at home. An example of permissive parenting would be the parents not disciplining their children.
An uninvolved or neglectful parenting style is when parents are often emotionally absent and sometimes even physically absent.They have little or no expectation of the child and regularly have no communication.
They are not responsive to a child’s needs and do not demand anything of them in their behavioral expectations.
If present, they may provide what the child needs for survival with little to no engagement.There is often a large gap between parents and children with this parenting style. Children with little or no communication with their own parents tended to be the victims of another child’s deviant behavior and may be involved in some deviance themselves.
Children of uninvolved parents suffer in social competence,academic performance, psychosocial development and problem behavior.
There is no single or definitive model of parenting.
With authoritarian and permissive (indulgent) parenting on opposite sides of the spectrum, most conventional and modern models of parenting fall somewhere in between. Parenting strategies as well as behaviors and ideals of what parents expect, whether communicated verbally and/or non-verbally, also play a significant role in a child’s development.
The long term longitudinal studies referenced don’t directly correlate parenting style with attachment but it seems intuitive they would be associated.
Authoritative parenting style very likely promotes healthy secure attachment.
What are the key ingredients and how do they relate to our girl’s day on the rope course?
Authoritative parenting establishes structure through policy
For most families the main policies for successful function revolve around a few key issues: safety, healthy sleep habits, healthy eating habits, respectful treatment of others physically and emotionally (ie. No aggression, profanity, emotional abuse), healthy personal care (teeth brushing, hygiene, etc), listening to parents, and work production (chores and homework).
These mainstay issues should certainly have policies governing their execution.
Sometimes the function of these main issues happens so naturally in the home that policy is implicit and not in need of much work. Occasionally there are challenge areas that need formal policy making, education and emphasis until behavior changes.
Outside of mainstay policy for effective family functioning, policy can be tailored to meet the needs of individual children.
For example, our girl on the rope course clearly had some anxiety and adjustment difficulty.
A policy for her may have been talent building opportunities or chances to experience new things. Within that framework there would be many opportunities for discussion and decision making.
Authoritative parenting involves children in policy making when possible
Discussion with a six month old about why they need to sleep through the night in their own bed won’t help the baby understand your policy decisions, but it will help you commit to authoritative thinking.
By three and half years old children begin to understand through verbal instruction what will happen next. For example, ‘if you go in the road, what will happen?’. “I’ll go to time out.” By four years of age children understand why things happen in simple and direct association.
For example, ‘why should you not go in the road?’ “I might get hit by a car.” Our girl on the rope course may have had a discussion with her parents that went something like this. ‘Mom and dad know you are nervous when you try new things.
We want you have new experiences to give you lots of life enjoyment. What kinds of things would you like to try?’ At this point child and parent could brainstorm several options and the girl could pick something that sounded interesting.
Most policies have negotiable and nonnegotiable items. For example, it’s not negotiable that you will try new experiences rather than watch tv and play video games all day. What kind of things you try is very negotiable. Policy making should involve lots of love and education about why the policy is important.
Authoritative parenting works more on healthy attachment than behavior control
Children are much more likely to be compliant when they feel a close connection with their parent. (Please see dance of the mosquito blog for more understanding).
Authoritative parenting focuses on understanding and rewards before consequences
Some children seem to need consequences to adjust their behavior but many comply just because of their close relationship with their parent and they know it’s the right thing to do. It’s worth a try to set a policy with lots of teaching before implementing a consequence.
Authoritative parenting practices behavior change before expecting compliance in a pinch
Just like adaptation to trying a rope course could be practiced before getting to the first platform, most behaviors can be practiced before the behavior is needed in timely and effective execution. Practice can be fun with lots of together time with parents and rewards.
You should know that your child can do something before assuming that they won’t do something.
Authoritative parenting doesn’t use emotion or coercion for compliance
If preparation is done appropriately, execution should be without emotion, discussion, yelling, threatening, or physical force.
Displays of anger, anxiety, sadness or excess happiness distract the child from policy execution to their relationship with the parent. Children and parents reverberate emotion.
Anger in a parent can create more anger in a child or a feeling of anxiety.
Likewise if children see that their parents are experiencing intense anxiety they will also have anxiety or sadness for the parent. Excess happiness can come across and mockery or sarcasm.
Talking and persuasion from parents also distracts from the task at hand. Children would much rather argue about doing something than do it. Arguing with parents can be fun; plus it can reinforce a great sense of control over the big and powerful people. A simple forewarning or reminder about policy can be done in ten words or less.
Just as our parents on the rope course stood in silence with body language expressing love and confidence in their child’s abilities – at the moment of accomplishment supportive silence is magic.
Authoritative parenting establishes consequences as part of family policy
Hopefully consequences such as timeout, job grounding, and removing privileges aren’t needed. It’s best to try without them first, however, some children don’t change behavior unless consequences are implemented and they learn by experience and unpleasant encounters that breaking policy leads to misery. Consequence implementation should only be done after a policy discussion about the need for consequences and how the consequences relate to the other policies.
For example, if you have created policy about doing chores and allowed time for behavior to change, then you could have a formal policy discussion about societal consequences of misbehavior. ‘What happens if daddy drives too fast?’ ‘What happens if mommy or daddy doesn’t do work?’ ‘What happens if big people hurt someone?’ Most children will understand that consequences are necessary, especially if they are first given a chance to change without them.
consequence for not succeeding is difficult but could be done.
For example, she could be helped to understand that not cooperating after so much preparation would result in her paying for much of the expense of the day by working.
For an experience like a tutorial on parenting ,one would hope to rely on the child’s ingrained sense of structure from past experience in the home.
If she is motivated to change mainly by consequence, she should have had lots of experience with other behavior issues at home to teach her consequence follows prior to attempting the rope course. As she looked back at her parents faces she saw an instant cumulative interaction experience and knew how the parents would respond.
That connection with her parents helped power her forward both in a secure attachment but also in knowing the results for not performing. Trying was less onerous than not trying.
Authoritative parents administer consequences calmly and lovingly
If proper policy is established, taught and practiced, the execution of consequence should be predictable and done without anger or lecture.
Any anger or sermons at this juncture turn the attention off of the policy and the child’s responsibility for execution of the policy and to relationship control dynamics with the parent.
A little facial expression of genuine sorrow that the child has chosen poorly can turn the problem back to the child’s responsibility of policy compliance.
The more effectively the policy is established, the more loving the consequence can be administered because the responsibility for noncompliance falls on the child, and the predicament the child faces is with the policy – not the parent.
The problem is that parents feel.
Most parents don’t like to see their children upset and children’s emotions automatically create strong emotions in parents because of their close attachment.
Parents often begin to have thoughts of catastrophe when their children are upset and say things like, “you’re not my favorite parent anymore.”
Worries emerge about the child not liking them again, not inviting them to their wedding and not ever seeing their grandchildren; these worries augment into a firestorm of painful sensations.
Parent’s emotional reaction may preclude successful administration of consequences in a calm manner.
The key is for parents to maintain focus on policy adherence and not emotional response.
Sometimes parents need professional help with their own emotional regulation abilities before attempting to help their children regulate their behaviors.
Most children who need consequences will also require a transition time to adjust to new policies during which they may express a lot of negative emotion.
Some take longer than others and for some it’s like climbing Mount Everest. If the child truly can adjust to policy and doesn’t have some condition precluding behavior transformation, it will just take some time.
A major problem develops if parents only help the child halfway up the mountain and then give up. The child then not only doesn’t develop adaptive resilience but is reinforced for maladaptive behavior strategies.
-Jane brooks (28 September) the process of parenting
-johri ashush ” 6 steps for parents so your child is successful”