38 ELEANOR E. AND JOHN A.
MARTIN SOCIALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY: PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION
Restrictiveness Permissiveness gree to which the parents merely communicated in-
formation regarding the requirements of the real
Warmth Submissive, dependent, Active, socially outgoing, world in which the child operates, rather than mak-
polite, neat, obedient creative. successfully
ing themselves the source of requirements. As Bald-
(Levy) aggressive (Baldwin)
Minimal aggression Minimal rule win puts it, "When the parent makes himself the
(Sears) Maximum rule enforcement. bo\s source of the controls upon the child, he is following
enforcement, boys (Maccoby) an authoritarian technique; when he merely commu-
(Maceoby) Dependent, Facilitates adult role nicates to the child the rules that exist, he is following
not taking (Levin)
friendly, not creative Minimal self-aggression,
a democratic technique" (p. 447). Included under
(Watson) Maximal democratic parenting were parents' efforts to justify
boys (Sears)
compliance Independent, friendly, their actions or policies. This dimension had its
(Meycti) creative, low projective theoretical origin in the writings of Lewin (see
hostility (Watson)
especially Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939).
Since the early work described above, concepts
concerning the salient dimensions of parenting have
undergone considerable change. The use of chil-
Hostility "Neurotic" problems Delinquency (Gluecks. dren's reports and observations of parent-child in-
(clinical studies) Bandura & Walters)
teraction to supplement or replace parent interviews
More quarreling and Noncompliance
and questionnaires has provided a more differenti-
shyness with peers (Watson) (Meyers) Maximal
Socially withdrawn aggression (Sears) ated dimensional picture. Work with infants on the
(Baldwin) aspects of parenting related to bonding has contrib-
Low in adult role taking
uted to the differentiation. Parker and colleagues
(Levin)
Maximal self-aggression, (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979), in their analysis
of the Parental Bonding Instrument, identify two
boys (Sears)
dimensions: (1) caring and empathic versus rejecting
or indifferent; and (2) an overprotection dimension
that involves encouraging dependency, controlling,
Figure 1. Interactions in the consequences of warmth versus hos- intruding, and infantilizing. The influential work of
t i l i t y and restrictiveness versus permissiveness. From Becker
Ainsworth and colleagues (cf. Ainsworth et al.,
(1964), p. 198.
1971) has emphasized responsiveness, a dimension
that is related to, but not synonymous with, the
warmth/hostility dimension (see also Clarke-Stew-
art, 1973). Responsiveness, as used by Ainsworth
was not nearly so central to the theory as more spe-
and colleagues, comes out of ethological theory and
cific contingency of parental reward or punishment
emphasizes the linking or meshing of parent and
on specific desired or undesired behavior in chil-
child behaviors. From the standpoint of learning the-
dren. The restrictive/permissive or control/autono-
ory, responsiveness (i.e., contingency of parent re-
my dimension simply emerged repeatedly with little
sponses on prior child behavior), may be viewed as
theoretical rationale as a dimension with respect to
reinforcement, broadly defined, although it includes
which parents differed reliably. It could be incorpo-
responses that are not rewards in the usual sense. J.
rated post hoc by learning theory on the grounds that
high control or restriction represented parents' set- S. Watson (1969) has emphasized the importance of
ting tasks for children to learn, but in practice the contingency in an infant's environment in keeping
dimension did not fit this formulation very clearly. the infant engaged, active, and responsive; Cairns
The early work of Baldwin and colleagues (sum- (1979) provides evidence from animal experiments
marized in A. L. Baldwin, 1955) differed from the that the ratio of contingent to noncontingent social
factor-analytic studies summarized above in that it reinforcements determines whether an organism
made use of home visits, so that parent interviews continues to be highly responsive to social reinforce-
were supplemented by the visitors' observational ment over succeeding periods of time. Patterson
ratings. Analysis of parental variables in these stud- (1982) analyzes the interaction between parents and
ies also revealed a major warmth/coldness dimen- aggressive children in the same terms. The emphasis
sion, but two other orthogonal dimensions emerged on parental contingent responsiveness may also be
neither of which clearly corresponded to the re- seen as linked to the large body of work on "learned
strictive/permissive dimension: democracy versus helplessness" (Seligman, 1975). When parents re-
autocracy, and emotional involvement versus de- spond contingently they may be seen as providing
tachment. "Democratic" parenting reflected the de- children with control over their environment, and
39
THE
•
thus fostering the development of efficacy as distinct
from helplessness. Whether parental responsiveness
be viewed as contingent reinforcement (meaning,
presumably, that the parents are "shaping" the child
by responding differentially to desired and undesired
behavior), as providing control to the child, or
merely as parental sensitivity and adaptation to the
child's signals, states, and needs, the concept differs
importantly from that of warmth, which includes
affection or praise when they are given contingently
but also when they are given on the parent's
impulse regardless of the concurrent state, signals,
and behavior of the child.
Following the early factor-analytic studies, the
control/autonomy (or restrictive/permissive) dimen-
sion also began to break down and be redefined.
Studies based on children's reports of their parents'
child-rearing attitudes and behavior differentiated
two dimensions: (1) psychological autonomy-giving
versus psychological control (i.e., control through
arousing guilt or instilling anxiety); and (2) firm ver-
sus lax control (Burger & Armentrout, 1971;
Schaefer, 1965). Baumrind and Black (1967), work-
ing with scores based on both observations and inter-
views, identified four dimensions that were surpris-
ingly orthogonal: consistent discipline, maturity
demands, restrictiveness, and encouragement of in-
dependent contacts. In a tripartite classification of
patterns of parenting, Baumrind (1967, in prepara-
tion) included consistent discipline and high matu-
rity demands, but not simple restrictiveness, with the
pattern of authoritative parenting. In Baumrind's
most recent conceptualization, a parenting classifi-
cation is employed representing the intersection of
two dimensions: parental demandingness and paren-
tal responsiveness.
In a number of studies, the degree of parental
involvement—high amounts of either positive or
negative interaction versus "diminished," inactive,
or indifferent parenting—has emerged as a charac-
teristic of parenting worthy of attention. Martin
(1981) distinguished mothers of infants as being ei-
ther involved or "autonomous" (i.e., driven mainly
by their own prior behavior rather than by that of
their infants); Pulkkinen (1982) differentiated
among parents according to whether they were
child-centered or parent-centered. Wallerstein and
Kelly (1981) point to "diminished" parenting oc-
curring after a divorce.
A Fourfold Scheme
Figure 2 is a representation of the clusters of
parental characteristics that result from the cross-
Accepting Rejecting
Responsive Unresponsive
Child-centered Parent-centered
Demanding, Authoritative- Authoritarian
controlling reciproeal Power assertive
High in bidirec-
tional com-
munication
Undemanding, low Indulgent Neglecting, ignoring,
in control indifferent,
attempts uninvolved
Figure 2. A two-dimensional classification of parenting patterns.
classification of a more expanded and differently
defined dual-dimensional system than the one em-
ployed by Becker (1964). In the sections that follow,
we will summarize findings that at least roughly re-
late to the four patterns of parental behavior shown
in the four cells of the diagram, as well as to the main
dimensions taken one at a time.
The classification scheme shown in Figure 2 will
prove to be a procrustean bed for some studies that
were not designed to fit it, but we will attempt to
draw out the major themes related to the fourfold
picture. To anticipate, we will argue that the set of
outcomes that can be assigned to the cells will pre-
sent quite a different picture from the one that
emerged from the Becker classification.
Readers will note that whereas one of the tradi-
tional dimensions of disciplinary techniques—
power assertiveness—can be subsumed fairly well
under the heading of authoritarian parenting, there is
no place in the diagram for induction or other forms
of reasoning, for causal attributions made by par-
ents, or for withdrawal of love. We have clustered
these aspects of parenting loosely in a separate sec-
tion (The Content of Parent-Child Communication).
The Authoritarian-Autocratic Pattern
In the authoritarian pattern, parents' demands on
their children are not balanced by their acceptance of
demands from their children. Although it is under-
stood that children have needs that parents are obli-
gated to fulfill, power-assertive parents place strict
limits on allowable expression of these needs by
children. Children are expected to inhibit their beg-
ging and demanding, and in extreme cases they may
not even speak before being spoken to. Parents' de-
mands take the form of edicts. Rules are not dis-
cussed in advance or arrived at by any consensus or
bargaining process. Parents attach strong value to
the maintenance of their authority, and suppress any