Gender Differences in the Associations between Perceived Parenting Styles and Juvenile Delinquency in Pakistan

Received 22 Jun, 2016

Accepted 29 Nov, 2016

Published 31 Dec, 2016

The present study identified gender differences in adolescents' reports on their mothers’, fathers' parenting styles, and in the associations between perceived parenting styles and juvenile delinquency. For this purpose, five schools were randomly selected from Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. In total, 1140 students (11-17 years, 51% girls and 49% boys) with mean age of 13.4 years (SD = 1.4) filled in an amended version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) and the Self-reported Delinquency Scale (Naqvi & Kamal, 2008). Results showed that reports on parenting styles varied by parental and adolescent gender. Authoritative parenting style was associated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency, whereas neglectful parenting was associated higher levels of delinquency. Moreover, perceived maternal parenting styles showed stronger relationships with juvenile delinquency than paternal parenting styles. Findings suggested that Baumrind’s parenting typology is applicable in developing countries like Pakistan. Therefore, it is concluded that there are more similarities than differences in results between Western countries and Pakistan.

Juvenile delinquent behavior is defined as “any illegal actions committed by a juvenile in which there is an apprehension of court proceeding” (Balogun & Chukwumezie, 2010, p, 46). An adolescent who commits felony such as theft, rape, drug related crimes or any other antisocial behavior will be considered as delinquent. Juvenile delinquency is rapidly increasing all over the world. Statistics revealed that delinquency rate in Western countries increased rapidly between mid-1980s and late 1990s (e.g., Snyder & Sickmund, 1999; Estrada, 2001) followed by some decline thereafter (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009). The observed increase in juvenile delinquency was not limited to the developed world but developing countries also faced the same problem after 1995 (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2011). According to UNICEF (2006), the number of adolescents conflicting with law is not less than one million. The situation does not look different in Pakistan. Gillani, Rehman, and Gill (2009) reported the country at 23^rd rank in the list of daily crimes (1144 per day), and Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (2012) reported that the number of arrested juveniles increased from 1225 in 2010 to 1421 in 2011.

Several factors contribute to delinquency among adolescents. The family environment in general (Steinberg, 2008), parenting styles in particular (Baumrind, 2005), poverty (Cummings, Ballard, El-Sheikh, & Lake, 1991), peer influence, and the characteristics of the community (Vazsonyi et al. 2008) are most salient. Family relations produce long lasting effects on the children. Some scholar seven stated that family relations establish a model for all other relationships of life, such as educational, economic, political, and religious (Ho, 1996; Kim & Choi, 1994); and parenting is an important aspect of the family relationships. Several theorists have conceptualized parenting behaviors differently, such as Baumrind (1966) who pointed out two parenting behaviors that is, responsiveness and demandingness. Responsiveness is defined as support and acceptance by parents for their children’s needs in order to enhance individuality and self-assertion. Parental warmth, autonomy granting, and explanations of parental demands are essential components of this process (Baumrind, 2005). Demandingness is defined as parent’s expectation of maturity by the children that demands behavioral regulations and avoidance of violation to predefined rules in order to enhance their adjustment and integration in the society (Baumrind, 2005). Different combinations of these behaviors further build four parenting styles (Baumrind, 2005; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). These parenting styles are authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful. Darling and Steinberg (1993) briefly defined parenting styles as a constellation of attitudes towards children that are communicated to them and that taken together; create an emotional climate in which the parents’ behaviors are expressed.

Available studies from Western countries indicate that authoritative parenting (high demandingness plus high responsiveness) minimizes the likelihood of delinquency (e.g., Asher, 2006; Hoeve, et al., 2009). Authoritative parenting provides a balance between restrictiveness and autonomy. Consequently, authoritative parenting promotes self-reliance and competence among children and adolescents (Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). Verbal give and take promotes intellectual development that offers basis for psycho-social maturity (Smetana, Cren, & Daddis, 2002).

Most studies indicate that the remaining three parenting styles are not associated with healthy personality development (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Several studies have found that authoritarian parenting (high demandingness plus low responsiveness) is associated with serious violence among adolescents (e.g., Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henary, 2000; Balogun & Chukwumezie, 2010). If parents use physical aggression or other power asserting techniques to control the behavior of their offspring, their children are more likely to use the same tactics while dealing with others (Bandura, 2006). Nonetheless, few studies indicate that authoritarian parenting may promote healthy development for specific subgroups and under specific conditions, such as when children have to be protected from a dangerous neighborhood (Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006).

Permissive or indulgent parenting (low demandingness plus high responsiveness) also tends to be associated with elevated levels of juvenile delinquency. For example, Jacobson and Crocket (2000) reported that adolescents of permissive parents are more likely to be influenced by negative associates such as delinquent peers. Another study of Synder and Sickmund (1995) concluded that permissive parenting is a risk factor for rule breaking behavior among adolescents. Nevertheless, in a study from Spain, Garcia, and Garcia (2009) indicated that both authoritative and indulgent parenting styles may be associated with a low risk for delinquency among adolescents.

Finally, the fourth parenting style, neglectful parenting (low demandingness plus low responsiveness) is often associated with high level of delinquency among adolescents. For instance, Hoeve et al. (2008) showed that the neglectful parenting style is a risk factor for delinquency, and the parents who practice neglectful parenting have a poor relationship with their adolescents. Summers (2006) observed that adolescents having consistent experience with neglectful parenting were most likely to be charged against any disciplinary issue which might, again, promote delinquency.

Gender Differences
The assumptions on parenting styles are often formulated in a generalized way (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Chao, 2001). Nonetheless, associations of parenting styles with child outcomes may vary by parental and adolescent gender. Available studies indicate that parental behaviors vary, in part, by the gender of the child which could, again, affect child outcomes. For instance, Coie and Dodge (1998) and Hyde (1984) suggested that the female child is more closely supervised by her parents than the male child. Dwairy (2004) found that Palestinian girls perceived their parents as more authoritative than boys; while, the reverse was observed for authoritarian parenting. In contrast, Rhucharoenpornpanich et al. (2010) did not find differences between boy’s and girl’s perception of parenting styles. Furthermore, Chipman, Olsen, Klein, Hart, and Robinson (2000) observed that girlconvicts even reported higher level of authoritarian behavior of their parents as compared to their male convicts. Specifically, with reference to associations of parenting with delinquency, Hoeve et al. (2009) found that a neglectful parenting style increased the risk of delinquency only in boys whereas permissive parenting was associated with more delinquency only among girls.

Regarding parental gender, there is some evidence that mothers behave more authoritatively than fathers, while fathers behave more in an authoritarian way than mothers (Russel et al., 1998; Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). As mothers are the main caregivers in many societies, they may have a stronger impact than fathers on the behavior of their children (Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter, & Keehn, 2007). In fact, the meta-analysis by Rothbaum and Weisz (1994) found that maternal parenting has stronger associations withdelinquency than paternal parenting. In contrast, a more recent meta-analysis by Hoeve et al. (2009) found that paternal support showed a stronger negative relationship with delinquency than maternal support. They also reported that associations of parental support with delinquency were stronger for same-sex dyads (e.g., father-son) than for opposite-sex dyads. However, these meta-analyses did not analyze gender differences in the association between parenting styles and delinquency.

With regard to adolescent’s gender, male adolescents tend to show higher levels of juvenile delinquency than their female peers (e.g., Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). A meta-analysis by Card, Stuckey, Salawani, and Little (2008) also indicated that overt aggression is more persistent among boys than among girls. As boys are more likely to show delinquent behavior than girls, parenting efforts might also have stronger effects on the prevention or reduction of boys’ delinquency. However, the meta-analysis by Hoeve et al. (2009) did not find empirical support for this suggestion.

As most available research on gender differences in parenting and associations of parenting with delinquency has been done in Western countries, it is important to know whether associations of parenting with delinquency vary between Western and nonWestern countries. Chang (2007) argued that cultural values have a strong influence on the selection of parenting styles. More concretely, Chao (2001) suggested that authoritative parenting is considered most suitable in the west but it may not have the same effects across other cultures. In countries where authoritarian parenting is more accepted (e.g., use of physical discipline), authoritarian parenting would be less likely to be related to negative child outcomes than in Western countries. For example, in a study on eight Arab countries Dwairy and Achoui, (2006) observed that authoritarian parenting within an authoritarian culture does not harm the adolescents’ mental health as it does in western liberal societies.

Gender differences in the use of parenting styles and in the association between parenting styles and child outcomes may also vary between cultures. Collectivistic societies like Pakistan are enriched with traditional culture, with strong focus on the collective system rather than individuation. Gendered norms which do not promote equality in roles and responsibilities are prevalent in these societies (Critelli, 2010) and may affect the selection of parenting styles. Girls are treated with more warmth and control to prepare them for later responsibilities in the household (Stewart, Bond, Ho, Zaman, Dar, & Anwar, 2000).

Hypotheses

There are very few studies that highlighted the importance of authoritative parenting for adolescent’s grooming in non-western countries like Pakistan. Up to now, only three studies from Pakistan addressed association between parenting styles and deviant behaviors of adolescents. These studies inferred that authoritative parenting is inversely associated with deviant behaviors of adolescents, while the reverse is true for authoritarian parenting (Gilani & Altaf, 2005; Akhtar, Hanif, Tariq, & Atta, 2011; Rizvi, & Najam, 2015). Unfortunately, these studies assessed only three out of four parenting styles as defined by Maccoby and Martin (1983) and did not report results on neglectful parenting. Moreover, these studies did not analyze whether gender moderates the association of parenting with juvenile delinquency. Based on these scientific gaps, the followings research questions and hypotheses were derived for the present study:

1.	Mothers are perceived by their adolescent children to behave more authoritatively than fathers
2.	Fathers are perceived to behave more authoritarian than mothers
3.	Female adolescents perceive the behavior of their parents more authoritatively than their male peers
4.	Authoritative parenting shows an inverse relationship with juvenile delinquency
5.	Perceived maternal parenting shows stronger associations with juvenile delinquency than perceived parental parenting
6.	Male adolescents show higher level of delinquency than female adolescents

METHOD

Sample
Initially, five schools from Lahore, Pakistan were randomly selected. After getting the permission from the schools’ principals, questionnaires were distributed to students from grade 6 to 10 aged 11-17 years. Their mean age was 13.4 years (SD = 1.4). Questionnaires were administered in the presence of class teachers, and cooperative attitude of teachers made it easier to maintain the discipline in classes. Students were explained about objectives of the research and the importance of their responses. They were assured about the confidentiality of their responses, and that the information obtained from them will only be used for research purposes. Students took 60-90 minutes for completing their questionnaires. Of about 1500 students participated in this research activity at these schools, 1140 adolescents completed the questionnaires on behaviors of both parents (49% boys, 51% girls; response rate 76%). Students with only one available parent were excluded from the present analysis.

Measures
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). The researchers used a modified version of the PAQ to measure perceived parenting styles separate questions were stated for maternal and paternal parenting. The PAQ was developed by Buri (1991) in English language and encompasses three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) with 10 items to be rated on 5-point Likert for each subscale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Because neglectful parenting style was missing, the researchers added 6 items on neglectful parenting, based on Baumrind’s parenting prototypes and their components (Baumrind, 1996). A sample item for the neglectful parenting style is “My mother always showed an indifferent attitude while I was making my decisions”. In the present study, the modified PAQ was translated in Urdu language by three bilinguals and later translated backward by using blind technique. The Urdu version of the original PAQ had already been used in studies in Pakistan (Kausar & Shafique, 2008; Loona & Kamal, 2012) with satisfactory reliability estimates. In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas of the subscales of the PAQ (maternal version) were .75, (authoritative parenting), .76 (authoritarian parenting),.61 (permissive parenting), and.70 (neglectful parenting); while, Cronbach’s alphas for the paternal version of the PAQ were .77 (authoritative parenting), .76 (authoritarian parenting), .65 (permissive parenting), and .72 (neglectful parenting).

Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRDS). An indigenous Self-Reported Delinquency Scale developed by Naqvi and Kamal (2008) was used to measure delinquent tendencies among adolescents. The SRDS consists of 25 items that are answered on a 5 point Likert type scale ranging from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘10 or more times’ (5). The items refer to theft, drug abuse, lying, non-compliance, police encounter, violence related delinquency, aggression, cheating and gambling, and harassment. A sample item is “I traveled on bus or train without ticket”. Two of the original items referring to sex-related delinquency had to be excluded from original scale as the school authorities had several concerns on these questions. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha of .88 was achieved for SRDS.

Demographic Form. A demographic form was separately prepared, covering factual information like age, gender, educational level/grade, number of siblings, residential area, and socio-economic background.

RESULTS

Four separate ANOVAs were computed with adolescent gender as between-subject factor, parental gender as within-subject factor (because each adolescent reported on maternal and paternal parenting), and the four parenting styles as dependent variables.

Table 1:	Variations of Perceived Parenting Styles by Parental and Adolescent Gender (N = 1140)
Note. Partial η²= variance explained by the predictor. *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Significant main effects of parental gender were found with regard to authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting. Fathers were perceived as less authoritarian as well as more neglectful and permissive than mothers (Table 1). Thus, Hypothesis 1 and 2 were not supported.

Main effects of adolescent gender were observed for authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful parenting. Boys perceived the behavior of their parents as less authoritative as well as more authoritarian and neglectful than girls. Thus, the third hypothesis was confirmed by the present results. In addition, significant interaction effects between parental and adolescent gender were observed with regard to authoritative and permissive parenting. Girls reported stronger differences between levels of authoritative parenting of mothers and fathers than boys. In addition, fathers of boys were perceived as most permissive.

With regard to the fourth hypothesis, bivariate associations between parenting styles and delinquency were analyzed (Table 2).

Table 2:	Correlations Matrix for Delinquency and Four Parenting Styles
Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations between perceived maternal parenting and juvenile delinquency; values below the diagonal represent correlation between perceived paternal parenting and juvenile delinquency. *p<.05. **p<.01

Three out of four parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful) were found to have significant relationships with delinquency. More specifically, higher scores on authoritative parenting were associated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. In contrast, authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles were associated with higher levels of delinquency. For determining whether the effect size of these parenting styles differ by parental gender, we calculated 95% Confidence intervals (CI) of the correlations between four parenting styles and delinquency scores. The 95% CI for authoritative and neglectful parenting of mothers versus fathers do not overlap, indicating that maternal parenting styles showed stronger associations with delinquency than paternal styles (Table 2). However, 95% CIs of associations of maternal and paternal authoritarian as well as permissive parenting overlap, indicating that the size of these associations do not differ significantly by parental gender. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is, in part, supported by the present data.

Because perceptions of the four parenting styles were, in part, inter-correlated, multiple linear regression analyses were computed for analyzing multivariate associations of the four parenting styles with delinquent behavior of adolescents. Four separate analyses were computed (girls’ views on maternal and paternal parenting, boys’ views on maternal and paternal parenting). For girls’ report on maternal parenting, the regression model was significant, F(4,572) = 21.15, p< .001, R² = .13, adjusted R² = .12. The total effect size (R²) for all four predictors can be interpreted as medium (Cohen, 1988). Results showed that higher levels of perceived maternal authoritative and permissive parenting are associated with lower levels of delinquency, whereas the reverse is true for perceived maternal authoritarian and neglectful parenting (Table 3).

Table 3:	Multivariate Associations between Perceived Parenting Styles and Juvenile Delinquency in Girls(N = 593)
Note. B/ß = un-/standardized regression coefficient, SE = standard error. *p <.05.**p<.01.***p<.001

For girls’ report on paternal parenting, the overall regression model was also significant, F(4,572) = 5.99, p< .001, R² = .04, adjusted R² = .03. The total effect size (R²) for all four predictors can be interpreted as small (Cohen, 1988). Results showed that higher levels of perceived paternal authoritative parenting is associated with lower levels of delinquency among girls, whereas reverse findings were observed for perceived paternal neglectful parenting. In contrast to mothers’ parenting, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles of fathers were nonsignificant predictors (Table 3).

With regard to boys’ reports on maternal parenting, the overall the regression model was significant, F(4,558) = 30.49, p< .001, R² = .17, adjusted R² = .17. The total effect size (R²) can be interpreted as medium (Cohen, 1988). Results showed that higher levels of perceived maternal authoritative and permissive parenting are associated with lower levels of delinquency, whereas reverse findings are found for perceived maternal authoritarian and neglectful parenting (Table 4).

Table 4:	Multivariate Associations between Perceived Parenting Styles and Juvenile Delinquency in Boys (N =547)
Note. B/ß= un-/standardized regression coefficient, SE = standard error. **p<.01.***p<.001

In addition the overall regression model for associations of boys’ delinquency with paternal parenting was significant, F(4,572) = 4.82, p< .01, R² = .03, adjusted R² = .03. The total effect size (R²) for all four predictors can be interpreted as small (Cohen, 1988). Results showed that a higher level of perceived paternal neglectful parenting is associated with higher level of delinquency among boys. In contrast to boy’s perceptions of maternal parenting, authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles of fathers were not significant predictors of delinquency.

Finally, an independent sample t-test was computed to analyze the mean differences in delinquency among adolescent girls and boys. There were significant gender differences in the levels of delinquency with t(887.96) = 10.49, p< .001). Boys (M = 31.99, SD= 9.22) reported higher levels of delinquency than girls (M = 27.31, SD = 5.26), thus supporting Hypothesis 6.

DISCUSSION

The present study is the first to analyze the complete range of the parenting styles defined by Maccoby and Martin (1983) in families from Pakistan and to test whether mean levels and associations with delinquency differ by parental and adolescent gender. Perceptions of the parents varied between female and male adolescents with regard to three out of four parenting styles as did perceptions of the parenting styles of mothers versus fathers. Similar to studies from western countries, authoritative parenting tended to be associated with lower delinquency but this association was more consistent for mothers. In line with previous studies, male adolescents reported higher levels of delinquency than their female peers.

When comparing perceptions of maternal and paternal parenting, the present findings indicate that fathers from Pakistan are perceived as more neglectful or permissive than mothers, whereas mothers are perceived as more authoritarian than fathers. In contrast, the perceived use of authoritative parenting did not differ between reports on mothers and fathers. In societies like Pakistan, the fathers are designated for the role of bread winners, and the mothers are assigned the responsibilities of child rearing and house-keeping (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). As mothers take the main responsibility for shaping the behavior of their adolescents, they may show higher levels of authoritarian parenting than fathers in order to raise their adolescents according to acceptable familial and social norms. In this way, they are more likely to exhibit strict attitude towards their children, and enforce them to lead their lives according to prescribed rules and regulations rather than providing them room for their options and choices (Stewart et al., 2000). Because fathers spend more time in outside activities, and have fewer opportunities for interaction with their children compared to mothers, they are more likely to adopt a neglectful or permissive parenting style. In neglectful cases, they might have given parenting responsibility to mothers or other family members, and assumed that they are free from this obligation. In the case of permissive parenting, as they have only limited time for their children, and in order to satisfy children’s emotional needs, they might show warmth rather than control to build a positive association with them.

Male adolescents were found to perceive their parents more authoritarian and neglectful than their female peers while the reverse was observed with regard to authoritative parenting. The observed differences between male and female adolescents’ perceptions of authoritative parenting replicate results from Pakistan (e.g., Akhtar, 2012; Kauser & Shafique, 2008; Stewart et al., 2000). Parenting is linked with traditional roots of culture where certain stereotypes regarding the role of males and females compel parents to treat their children according to their gender (Witt, 1997). Like in many traditional societies, Pakistani males are considered suitable for breadwinning roles and females are encouraged to take part in household activities. This division of labor is classified by society and endorsed by family which at the beginning, promote the selection of varying parenting styles by parents. In order to make daughters suitable for their prescribed role and responsibilities (care-giving), parents treat them with more care, and prepare them gently how to meet culturally defined expectations (Ali, Krantz, Gul, Asad, Johansson, & Mogren, 2011).

As authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles are associated with less warmth than authoritative parenting (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), the present results indicate that boys perceive lower parental warmth than girls. Because neglectful parenting is characterized by low parental control while authoritarian parenting is characterized by high control, the results may either indicate that parental control of boys is more polarized with some boys facing high and other low levels of parental control or that parents behave more inconsistently when raising boys and show strict behavior in some situations and permissiveness in others. Positive correlations of perceived permissiveness and neglectfulness (Table 2) support the latter suggestion. Perceptions of female and male adolescents did not vary with regard to permissive parenting. These findings are in line with the research findings of Dwairy (2004).

The fourth hypothesis focused on associations of perceived parenting styles with adolescent delinquency. The present results indicate that authoritative parenting of mothers and, in part, fathers are associated with lower levels of juvenile delinquency whereas the reverse is true for (either maternal or paternal) neglectful parenting. These findings tend to be in line with results from Western countries (Hoeve et al., 2009). In contrast to most results from western countries, paternal authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were not related with delinquency which suggests tolerance for authoritarian or permissive paternal parenting in Pakistani culture. These results provide support for the suggestion that authoritarian or permissive parenting may not always have negative effects, as observed in the west (Garcia & Garcia, 2009; Steinberg et al., 2006).

The above discussion raises a question, whose’ parenting shows stronger associations with adolescent outcomes. Past literature has been inconsistent in this respect (Hoeve et al., 2009; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). The present results are in line with Rothbaum and Weisz (1994) and highlight the importance of maternal parenting with respect to preventing or reducing juvenile delinquency. These findings reconfirm the previous discussion that in culturally traditional countries like Pakistan, mothers as main caregivers spend more time with their adolescents than fathers, and have, therefore, more opportunities to affect the development of their offspring. Lamb, Ketterlinus, and Fracasso (1992) endorse this interpretation that the fundamental effect of mothers’ regular engagement with children as compared to fathers goes beyond preschool years into adolescence. This can causes stronger association between mothers’ parenting and adolescents’ delinquent behaviors.

Finally, similar to previous studies (e.g., Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Moffitt et al., 2001; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1995) the present findings indicate that boys are more involved in delinquent behaviors than girls. Several explanations of these differences have been stated with one being different parental treatments for daughters and sons. Several researchers indicate that girls are more closely supervised than boys, which is suggested to reduce delinquency (Bottcher, 1995; McCarthy, Hagan, &Woodward, 1999; Svensson, 2003). Moreover, in traditional societies, culturally defined roles confine girls within households and the boys are allowed to enjoy more time with their peers in sports or other out-door activities at public places (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). In such cases, relative liberty of adolescent boys and confinement of girls within the home affect their behavior in different directions. Boys are at high risk of developing delinquent behaviors due to their unsupervised time spent with their peers. In contrast, female adolescents have fewer opportunities to develop delinquent behaviors.

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are few limitations of the present study. First, the sample of the study was comprised of students from urban areas. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized at rural areas. In Pakistan, more than 67 percent of the citizens live in rural areas (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 2014). There are significant differences in social norms, values and practices between urban and rural areas which can differently effect the selection of parenting styles by parents, and their implications for the juvenile delinquency. Second, the present study did not account for social class differences because we took the sample from middle and lower middle class families solely. Adolescents belonging to upper class and lower class were not part of the study. Third, data was solely based on self-reported delinquency and their reports about parenting styles. Multiple informants were not included in the study. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the observed gender differences reflect gender differences in parental behavior or in adolescents’ perception of these behaviors. Nonetheless, mothers’ and fathers’ reports on parenting may be biased and avoid reporting problematic behaviors to a third party (Morsbach & Prinz, 2006) which supports the present use of adolescent reports. Lastly, the present correlational data did not allow for causal inferences.

Future studies should include more sources of information about parenting and delinquency and use experimental designs to test whether changes in parenting (in participants of parenting training) predict changes in juvenile delinquency. As effects of parenting trainings have not yet been evaluated in Pakistan, there is a need to develop and evaluate the effects of these trainings. The present results indicate that these programs should promote authoritative parenting (of mothers in particular) and minimize neglectful parenting.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that authoritative parenting is inversely and neglectful parenting positively linked to juvenile delinquency of Pakistani adolescents, and these associations are similar to the western world. We also conclude that there are similarities and differences between the perceived use of parenting styles of mothers and fathers from Pakistan. While authoritative parenting was reported to be equally practiced by both parents, mothers were reported to use more authoritarian parenting than fathers while the reverse was true with regard to permissive and neglectful parenting, irrespective to the gender of their adolescents. These gender differences have not yet been identified in the literature from Pakistan. Similar to previous studies (Kauser & Shafique, 2008), the present findings indicate that girls perceive their parents as more authoritative than boys whereas the reverse is true with regard to authoritarian or neglectful parenting. Prevailing cultural norms and values explain these differences, like culturally led parents’ own roles and responsibilities, and anticipated roles and responsibilities of adolescents. Importantly, it was observed that authoritative parenting was perceived to be used by both parents more for female adolescent whereas neglectful parting were perceived to be used more for male than for female adolescents. This can be one explanation for higher levels of delinquent behaviors among male adolescent as compared to female adolescents.

The present findings suggest that maternal parenting may have a greater impact on adolescent’s upbringing compared to paternal parenting and this is also a new addition to the scientific literature from Pakistan. Previous studies did not describe the links between gender, parenting styles and juvenile delinquency. While previous studies have only reported bivariate relationships, the present study analyzed the interplay of the three variables. Finally, ourresults confirm the universality of the positive association of authoritative parenting style with healthy personality development in Pakistan as suggested by Baumrind (1966).

REFERENCES

1. Akhtar, N., Hanif, R., Tariq, N., & Atta, M. (2011). Parenting styles as predictor of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems among children. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 26(1), 23-41.
2. Akhtar, Z. (2012). Attachment style of adolescents: Characteristics and contributing factors. Academic Research International, 2(2), 613-621.
3. Ali, T, S., Krantz, G., Gul, R., Asad, N., Johansson, E., & Mogren, I. (2011). Gender roles and their influence on life prospects for women in urban Karachi, Pakistan: A qualitative study. Global Health Action, 4, 7448.
4. Asher, A. J. (2006). Exploring the relationship between parenting style and juvenile delinquency. (Master’s thesis) .
5. Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). Role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76(6), 1144-1159.
6. Balogun, S. K., & Chukwumezie, M. (2010). Influence of family relationship, parenting style, and self-esteem on delinquent behavior among juveniles in remand homes. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 10(2), 46-56.
7. Bandura, A. (2006). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12-29.
8. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.
9. Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61-69.
10. Bottcher, J. (1995). Gender as social control: A qualitative study of incarcerated youths and their siblings in greater Sacramento. Justice Quarterly, 12, 33-57.
11. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110-119.
12. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, inter-correlations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185-1229.
13. Chang, M. (2007). Cultural differences in parenting styles and their effects on teens' self-esteem, perceived parental relationship satisfaction, and self-satisfaction. Dietrich College Honors Theses.
14. Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese-Americans and European-Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.
15. Chipman, S., Olsen, S. F., Klein, S., Hart, C. H., & Robinson, C. C. (2000). Differences in retrospective perceptions of parenting of male and female inmates and non-inmates. Family Relations, 49(1), 5-11.
16. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development(pp. 779-862). New York: Wiley.
17. Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg, (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Socio-emotional processes Vol. 4, (pp. 1003-1067). New York: Wiley.
18. Critelli, F. M. (2010). Beyond the veil in Pakistan. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(3), 236-249.
19. Cummings, E., Ballard, M., El-Sheikh, M., & Lake, M. (1991). Resolution and children’s responses to inter-adult anger. Developmental Psychology, 27, 462-470.
20. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
21. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Palestinian–Arab adolescents in Israel. Trans-cultural Psychiatry, 41(2), 233-252.
22. Dwairy, M., & Achoui, M. (2006). Introduction to three cross-regional research studies on parenting styles, individuation, and mental health in Arab societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 221-229.
23. Estrada, F. (2001). Juvenile violence as a social problem trends, medial attention, and societal response. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 639-655.
24. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2009). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: US National Printing Office.
25. Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44(173), 101-131.
26. Gilani, N., & Altaf, R. (2005). Tendencies of extremism among adolescents and post-adolescents in relation to parenting style. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3(1-2), 27-40.
27. Gillani, S. Y. M., Rehman, H., & Gill, A. R. (2009). Unemployment, poverty, inflation and crime nexus: Cointegration and causality analysis of Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 47(1), 79‐98.
28. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henary, D. B. (2000). A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family function to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(2), 169-198.
29. Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2001). Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(8), 1037-1051.
30. Ho, D. Y. F. (1996). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155-165). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
31. Hoeve, M., Blokland, A., Dubas, J. S., Loeber, R., Gerris, J. R., & Laan, P. H. (2008). Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 223-235.
32. Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W. H., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749-775.
33. Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736.
34. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). The true clash of civilizations. Foreign Policy, 135, 62-70.
35. Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65-97.
36. Kauser, R., & Shafique, N. (2008). Gender differences in perceived parenting styles and socio-emotional adjustments of adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 23(3-4), 93-105.
37. Kim, U., & Choi, S. (1994). Individualism, collectivism, and child development: A Korean perspective. In P. M. Greenfield and & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 1-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Lamb, M. E., Ketterlinus, R. D., & Fracasso, M. P. (1992). Parent-child relationships. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (3^rd ed., pp. 465-518). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Loona, M. I., & Kamal, A. (2012). Role of perceived parenting styles and familial factors in prediction of teacher-report childhood behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(3), 49-69.
40. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4^th ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
41. McCarthy, B., Hagan, J., & Woodward, T. S. (1999). In the company of women: Structure and agency in a revised power-control theory of gender and delinquency. Criminology, 37, 761-788.
42. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., & Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 39-47.
43. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Morsbach, S. K., & Prinz, R. J. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report of parenting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9, 1-21.
45. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2011). Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race.
46. Naqvi, I., & Kamal, A. (2008). Development of self-reported and informant reported delinquency scales for laborer adolescents. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 5-71.
47. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Area, population, density, and urban/rural proportion. Government of Pakistan.
48. Rhucharoenpornpanich, O., Chamratrithirong, A., Fongkaew, W., Rosati, M. J., Miller, B. A., & Cupp, P. K. (2010). Parenting and adolescent problem behaviors: A comparative study of sons and daughters in Thailand. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 93(3), 293-300.
49. Rizvi, S. F. I., & Najam, M. (2015). Emotional and behavioral problems associated with parenting styles in Pakistani adolescents. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 8(2), 6-13.
50. Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical sample: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 55-74.
51. Russell, A., Aloa, V., Feder, T., Glover, A., Miller, H., & Palmer, G. (1998). Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50, 89-99.
52. Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Daddis, C. (2002). Family processes and problem behaviors in middle-class African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(2), 275-304.
53. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1995 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
54. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Pittsburg, PA: Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention.
55. Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. (2012). The state of Pakistan’s children 2011. Arsha Publishing Concerns.
56. Steffensmeier, D. J., & Allan, E. (1995). Criminal behavior: Gender and age. In F. Sheley (Ed), Criminology: A contemporary handbook (2^nd ed., pp. 83-113). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
57. Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence (8^thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
58. Steinberg, L., Blatt E., I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), 47-58.
59. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
60. Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000). Perception of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. The British Psychological Society, 18, 335-352.
61. Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth & Society, 34, 300-329.
62. United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF; 2006). The state of the world’s children 2006: Excluded and invisible. New York: Author.
63. Vazsonyi, A. T., Chen, P., Young, M., Jenkins, D., Browder, S., Kahumoku, E., Pagava, K., Phagava, H., Jeannin, A., & Michaud, P. A. (2008). A test of Jessor's problem behavior theory in a Eurasian and Western European developmental context. Journal of Adolescence Health, 43(6), 555-564.
64. Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(1), 1-12.
65. Witt, S. D. (1997). Parental influence on children's socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32(126), 253-259.