Parenting Styles as Predictors of Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior Problems among Children

Received 08 Feb, 2010

Accepted 04 Apr, 2011

Published 30 Jun, 2011

The present research was aimed to study parenting styles as predictors of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems among children. The study was carried out on the sample of 200 couples including mothers (n = 200) and fathers (n = 200) with minimum secondary education level and having children between the ages of 8 to 12 years. Parenting Styles Dimension Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995) was used to determine personality traits. PSDQ was translated into Urdu and its psychometric properties were established. Child Problem Checklist (Tariq & Hanif, 2007) was administered on parents to rate the behavioral problems of their children. The results indicated positive relationship between authoritarian and permissive parenting styles with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems of children while there was negative relationship between authoritative parenting styles and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems of children. Furthermore, results demonstrated only authoritarian parenting style of mothers and fathers as a significant predictor of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children.

Parenting is a complex activity that includes many specific behaviors that work individually and cumulatively to influence globe. It is defined as, normal variations in parents’ attempts to control and socialize their children (Baumrind, 1967). Baumrind (as cited in Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003) developed extensive theoretical model of parenting. She distinguished three types of parenting styles based on two parental dimensions i.e., parental warmth which is related to parental involvement between children and parents, whereas parental control related to active role that parents play in promoting respect for rules and social conventions. On the basis of these two dimensions Baumrind (1967) identified three basic styles of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Authoritative parents tend to display both high control and high responsiveness and warmth to their children. Authoritative parents set reasonable demands on and have high expectations for their children while being warm and responsive.

Authoritarian parents combine high control with lower levels of warmth. This parenting style allows for strong parental command over their child, leaving minimal input of the child in decisions or rationales (Baumrind, 1991). In addition to high control and demand, authoritarian parents show little warmth, involvement, support, or emotional commitment to their child and it is proved to be as most negative form of parenting (Baumrind & Black, 1967).

Permissive parents exhibit high levels of warmth and low levels of control. Because warmth is displayed through overindulgence, permissive parents tend to be non-demanding and avoidant of controlling behavior or outlining boundaries in the children’s environment (Baumrind & Black, 1967). It has both negative and positive outcomes on children. In nut shell, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles are considered to be the two poles of a continuum, whereas the authoritative style exists somewhere in the middle (Dwairy, Achoui, Farah, & Fayad, 2006).

A considerable body of research has examined parental influence on children’s emotional and behavioral development. Specifically, variations in parental style and attitudes toward child rearing have been related to a wide range of child outcome variables (Baumrind, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Parenting styles have been identified as a major predictor of children’s’ future development and functioning. Both internalizing and externalizing problems, in parenting context, have widely been studied (Baumrind, 1971; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Previous literature has found relationship of parenting styles and behavioral problems of children (Baumrind, 1989). Several studies from different parts of the world have discovered that the persistence of problems reflects not just child characteristics like dysfunctional attachment relationships (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985) and difficult temperament (Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus, 1995) also parental characteristics (Jacob & Johnson, 1997), and parenting practices (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995).

Behavioral and emotional problems that children may develop are commonly divided into two groups i.e., disruptive or externalizing behavioral problems e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct problems, and emotional or internalizing behavioral problems e.g., anxiety and depression (Achenbach, 1991). Internalizing problems are intrapersonal in nature and appear in the form of withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and fearfulness (Achenbach, 1992; Campbell, 1995). Internalizing problems thus often affect individuals more than the others. Evidences indicate that shy and withdrawn behavior in reaction to social interaction may manifest as internalizing problems in childhood (Biederman et al., 2001) and adolescents (Caspi, Moffitt, Newman, & Silva, 1996).The externalizing behavior refers to a group of conditions characterized by aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity (Liu, 2004). They have common symptoms that are disruptive to others (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000).

Previous researches (Baumrind, 1989; Belsky, 1981) have shown that parenting styles affect the social, emotional, and intellectual development of their infants and toddlers. In general, authoritative parenting is negatively associated with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Steinberg et al., 1994; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006). On the other hand, both permissive and authoritarian parenting is positively associated with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002). A global evaluation of studies (Lamborn, Mounts, Stenberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994) reinforced the idea that the authoritative parents were the optimal parental style for positive behavior outcomes. Children reared by authoritative parents tend to far better than children raised by parents who employ permissive or authoritarian parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991).

Children reared by authoritarian parents develop an ample of behavioral problems i.e. anxiety, depression, social inhibition, aggression, and difficulty in regulating emotions (Hart et al., 2003; Hart, Nelson, Robinson, & McNeily-Choque, 1998; Nix et al., 1999). Children of authoritarian parents have been described as less content, show less affiliation toward peers, and more insecure, apprehensive, and hostile (Baumrind, 1971). Permissive parenting has been linked to bossy, dependant, impulsive behavior in children, with low levels of self-control and achievement. These children do not learn persistence, and emotional control (Baumrind, 1967). Positive outcomes of permissive parenting may include close parent-child relationships, greater self-esteem, and more autonomy (Herz & Gullone, 1999). This parenting style often fosters more serious problems in adolescents such as drug use and deviant behavior (Baumrind, 1991), school misconduct (McCord, 1988) and lower academic achievement (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987).

Researches in west have found relationship between parenting styles and a range of negative outcomes including academic maladjustment, success, moral development, emotion regulation and social competence (Baumrind & Black, 1967; Davidov & Grusec, 2006; Denham et al., 2000; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Laible, 2004; Spera, 2005). There are some researches (Awan, 2001; Babree, 1997) carried out in Pakistan to see the effects of parenting styles on adolescents. Babree (1997) explored the difference between aggressive and non-aggressive children’s perceptions of parental warmth and parental control in children ages 9 to 12 years. Awan (2001) found that child’s aggressiveness is associated with parental permissiveness. However, there is a scarcity of researches on the effects of parenting styles on the child population, thus this study has pioneered the ground work in the area of parenting style with reference to childhood behaviors.

As parenting is culturally sensitive phenomenon yet it t has been less studied in oriental settings. Contradictory finding between Arabian and western cultures has been evident (Dwairy et al., 2006). Darling and Steinberg (1993) point out that the influence of parenting style on behavioral outcomes across ethnic and cultures has not been adequately studied, despite research findings suggesting that differences exist. As these differences have been approved through some studies conducted in collectivistic cultures like Arab (Achoui, 2003; Zakareya, 1999).

Regarding gender differences, despite that the Arab society treats women more strictly than men (Zakareya, 1999). Achoui (2003) found that male children undergo more physical punishment than female children in Saudi Arabia. Studies on Palestinian adolescents in Israel indicated that boys perceive their parents’ style to be more authoritarian than girls do (Dwairy, 2004). Palestinian boys in the Gaza Strip also perceived both their parents as treating them more negatively than the girls did; they perceived their parents as being more strict in disci­plining, more rejecting, and hostile than did the girls (Punamaki, Qouta, & El Sarraj, 1997). Similar results were reported in Algeria (Fershani, 1998; Zegheena as cited in Dwairy et al., 2006).

These contradictory findings may need further investigation to get empirical support. It is assumed that Arabs have a different social system as compared to Pakistan, where parenting styles may have different impact on child development, and may be more consistent to west. Some of the available studies on parenting styles in Pakistan are child reported (Awan, 2001; Babree, 1997), but the current study was based on parent-reported measures of parenting styles. An advantage of self- report measure of parenting is very clear , as parents are more likely that others to have a comprehensive and wide range of their parenting across different context, but unlike, independent reports, self report is known to be subjected to biases , such as that of social desirability (Zaslow et al., 2006). Another objective is to find out the differences in parenting styles of mothers and fathers and behavior problems of children with reference to the gender of the child. Therefore, following hypotheses are built on the bases of existing literature.

1.	Authoritarian and permissive parenting styles of mothers and fathers would positively predict the behavior problems (both internalizing and externalizing) of the children
2.	Authoritative parenting style of mothers and fathers would negatively predict the behavior problems (both internalizing and externalizing) of the children

METHOD

Phase I: Translation of Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) Short Version
The major objective of this phase was to obtain Urdu version of (PSDQ) Short Version that is conceptually equivalent in the targeted Urdu language. Parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ) short version (Robinson et al., 1995) was used to measure the parenting styles. This measure uses the same typologies as Baumrind (1966) in order to distinguish the different types of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Parents were asked to report on specific styles that have been adopted by them while interacting with their children. This questionnaire comprised of 32 items anchored on five-point rating scale with 1 = “Never” and 5 = “Always”. Subscale of authoritative parenting style has 15 items with score range 15-75, authoritarian parenting style has 12 items with score range 12-60, and permissive parenting style has 5 items with score range 5-25 respectively. There is not any negative item in the questionnaire and high scores on each subscale are indicative of that particular parenting style. This phase was completed into following four steps.

Step I: Forward Translation. For the present study the instrument was translated into Urdu through the procedure of back translation. Procedures for translating an instrument have been developed by a number of behavioral scientists (e g., Brislin, 1970; Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). For the present study back translation method was used. In the first step, translation was carried out with the help of five bilinguals having at least M.Sc degree in Psychology who were proficient in Urdu and English and had experience of test development and translation and adaptation. These five translators were instructed according to the Brisilin’s (1970) criteria i.e., (1) to maximize the content similarity, (2) maintain relatively simple language level, and (3) translating the text without substitution or elimination of any item. Each of the five bilingual experts translated the questionnaire independently. After the initial translation a committee approach was conducted to select best translated items in Urdu. The committee was comprised of four psychologists including researcher. Each item was discussed at length and some items were slightly rephrased to make them more comprehendible. The primary emphasis was on checking whether these translated items conveyed the same contextual meaning as that of the original scale. Finally, the Urdu translated items were arranged in the same order as given in the original questionnaire.

Step II: Back Translation. The Urdu translated version of PSDQ was back translated into English language to identify points if equivalence or discrepancy between two versions. For the purpose of back translation, three independent bilingual translators, who were not exposed to the original items of PSDQ were provided with Urdu version of PSDQ. These bilingual experts were instructed to translate each item into English language. Out of these three members one was English Professor, two other members having at least M.Sc degree in Psychology.

Step III: Expert Panel. After the back translation, committee approach was conducted to maintain the structural and functional equivalence of items with the original questionnaire. Same committee critically evaluated the back translation by comparing it with the original items of PSDQ. The back translation matched closely with the original items except for typical expressions and slangs. Committee agreed that there were not differences in the translated and original version of PSDQ in term of structural and functional equivalence. Finally, they selected the best possible back translation of every item which conveyed the best meaning. The committee observed and checked that the back translation of the scale matched to a great extent with the original PSDQ. At the completion of back translation, content of each item was discussed thoroughly by the researcher and supervisor. Some of the items were slightly rephrased according to Pakistani Culture. These translated items were judged for their face validity by the present researcher and the supervisor. These exercises ensured sufficient content and face validity. Finally, the Urdu translated items were arranged in the same order as given in the original questionnaire.

Step IV: Establishment of Psychometric Properties. After the completion of translation, it was administered on 75 fathers and 75 mothers to ensure its psychometric properties. Parents’ having at least one child, age ranged between 8 and 12 years, were selected so that they could describe not only their parenting style but also the behavior problems found in their children of this age range. Parents’ minimum education level was matric. This educational level for the parents was determined so that they could read and respond to the questionnaire. The psychometric properties of translated questionnaire were determined with an independent sample. Alpha coefficients of the translated version were computed for its subscales i.e., for authoritative (.84), authoritarian (.84) and for permissive (.40). Item total correlations were computed for the sub scales and found ranges for authoritarian .51 to .73 (p < .01), for authoritative .44 to .74 (p < .01), and for permissive if from .46 to .57 (p < .01) which ensured that the translated version is internally consistent.

Phase II: Determination of Main Objectives/Hypotheses of Study
Sample. The sample comprised of 200 couples as parents including fathers (n = 200) and mothers (n = 200) having at least one child between the ages of 8 and 12 years. Those parents were selected whose children were enrolled in Islamabad Model schools. The sample was taken from 4 model schools of Islamabad. These schools were selected because usually it depicts the middle socioeconomic class. The minimum level of parents’ education was at least secondary school certificate (upto 10^th grade), so that they can understand well the questionnaires to be answered. Only those parents (couples) participated in this study who volunteered to participate. The age range of fathers in sample was 26 - 60 years (M = 40.79, SD = 5.78). While, the age of mothers ranged from 24 to 49 years (M = 35.60, SD = 4.83).

Instruments. In this phase along with Urdu version of PSDQ, an indigenously developed Child Problem Checklist (CPCL; Tariq & Hanif, 2007) was used to identify behavior problems of children. CPCL has three versions i.e., self-reported, teacher-reported, and parents-reported. For present study, parents reported version was used to asses the behavior problems of the children. It is an 80 items checklist, which provides list of behavior problems. The score ranges from 80- 240. There is no negative item in the check list. This checklist comprised of three subscales; internalizing behavior problems (33 items), externalizing behavior problems (35 items), and somatic problems (11 items), respectively. Cut off Score for total CPCL is 212. The respondents were asked to rate on a 5-point scale ranging from “Always Right” to “Not Right at All”. More behavioral problems were shown by high scores and less behavioral problems by low scores. However, in the present study only two subscales of CPCL have been used including measures for internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Alpha coefficients were computed for these two subscales on the present sample i.e., for internalizing behavior .85 and for externalizing behavior .90.

Procedure. The second phase was carried out to meet the objectives of the study. The main objective was to find out how the parenting styles positively and negatively predict the externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems among children. For the purpose, the principals and teachers of the Islamabad Model schools (Islamabad, Pakistan) were contacted personally by the researcher to convince them about the purpose of the study. After getting permission from the principal, class teachers of 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th grade were approached for further cooperation. Parents were invited in schools through the request of class teachers and administration. After getting the consent of volunteer parents, multiple sessions were conducted with the parents for the purpose of the data collection. Parents were briefed about the present study and ensured that information collected from them will be kept confidential and only be used for the research purpose.

RESULTS

Table 1:	Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach Alpha, and Correlation Matrix Among all Variables
Note. Please read 1 as Father’s authoritative style, 2 as Father’s Authoritarian style, 3 Father’s Permissive style 4 as Mother’s authoritative style, 5 Mother’s authoritarian style, 6 Mother’s permissive style, 7 as externalizing behavior problem, and 8 as internalizing behavior problems *p< .05, **p < .01

Table 1 presented the correlation matrix among the variables of the study. The findings suggested that authoritative parenting style of fathers and mothers have significant negative relationship with the authoritarian parenting style. Table also represented that authoritarian and permissive parenting style of fathers and mothers have significant positive relationship with the externalizing and internalizing behavior problems of the Authoritative parenting style of fathers and mothers have significant negative relationship with the behavior problems of the children. Table 1 also presented descriptive of all the variables of the present study. The table showed that all the scales and subscales achieved acceptable alpha level. However, subs-scale of permissive parenting style achieved relatively low reliability i.e., .40. The reliability of this subscale of the original version was also low as compared to other two subscales. Among other reason, small number of the items can be the cause of the low reliability of this scale as discussed by O’Connor (1993) that reliability errors are lass with the larger scales. It is also evident that the translation of the questionnaire (PSDQ) in Spanish by Calzada and Eyberg (2002) exhibited the low reliability of permissive parenting style as compared to two others subscales.

Table 2:	Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Parenting Styles of Fathers and Behavior Problems (Internalizing and Externalizing) of the Children
Note. PS = Parenting Styles

Table 2 described multiple regression analysis for parenting styles of fathers and their impacts on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Multiple regression analysis for internalizing behavior problems showed that authoritarian parenting style of fathers was the only significant predictor of internalizing behavior problems of the children showing the beta value (β = .20, t = 2.7, p < .006). Second model of multiple regression showed that authoritarian parenting style of fathers was significantly predicting the externalizing behavior problems as exhibiting in the result (β = .17, t = 2.4, p < .01). Permissive parenting style of fathers was also predicting the externalizing behavior problems in children showing the beta value (β = .16, t = 2.2, p < .02).

Table 3:	Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Parenting Styles of Mothers and Behavior Problems (Internalizing and Externalizing) of the Children
Note. PS = Parenting Styles

Table 3 presented multiple regression analysis for parenting styles of mothers and their impacts on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Multiple regression analysis for internalizing behavior problems showed that authoritarian parenting style of mothers was the only significant predictor of internalizing behavior problems of the children (β = .27, t = 3.5, p < .001). Second model of multiple regression showed that authoritarian parenting style of mothers is significantly predicting the externalizing behavior problems showing the beta value of (β = .34, t = 4.7, p < .00) as compared to the other two styles of parenting.

DISCUSSION

Alpha coefficients were calculated for the Urdu translated version of Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire Results showed that all the subscales of PSDQ achieved high reliability coefficient except for permissive parenting style which showed relatively low index of reliability. However, this low reliability was acceptable because of certain reasons. First of all, the reliability of original version of permissive parenting style questionnaire was also low as compared to other two subscales. Secondly this subscale has only five items this could also be a contributing factor to low reliability. As previous research proved that measurement errors are smaller in the measurement values obtained from the long scale than the short scales (O’Connor, 1993). This has also been supported by Gay (1985), who stated that high number of items present the abstract characteristic better, in measurement. Thirdly, during the process of translation and adaptation of this scale it is possible that occurrence of cultural differences, might be contributing factor to low reliability of the scale. It is witnessed that the translation of the scale (PSDQ) in Spanish by Calzada and Eyberg (2002) exhibited the low coefficient reliability of Permissive parenting style as compared to other two subscales.

On the basis of existing literature on parenting style it was assumed that authoritative parenting style of fathers and mot hers would negatively predict behavior problem (both internalizing and externalizing) in children. Findings of the present research revealed that authoritative parenting style of fathers and mothers have negative relationship with the behavior problems of the children, but this negative relationship is not significant predictor of behavior problems in children. Although, the relationship pattern between authoritative parenting style and behavior problem of children was consistent with existing literature, these nonsignificant findings can also be explained by many reasons e.g., inadequate sample size. Sample of the study may not truly be representative, as only parents from middle socio-economic status were selected for the present study. However, a larger sample from different socio-economic status could present real picture. It has been supported by many researches that socio economic status, background, and cultural values effects parenting style of parents and their impacts on children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

Previous research has indicated that children’s and adolescents’ low self-esteem and behavioral problems are associated with authoritarian, less nurturing and supportive parenting (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Marcia, 1980). Authoritarian parenting style contributes positively to feelings of unhappy, dissatisfied, apprehensive, fearful, socially inhibited, aggressive, and experience difficulty in regulating emotions (Baumrind, 1968; Baumrind & Black, 1967; Hart et al., 1998). The findings of the current study supported the notion that authoritarian parenting style of mothers and fathers would have positive relationship with behavioral problems (both externalizing and internalizing) of the children. Substantial amount of research (Baumrind, 1967; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994; Hart et al., 2003) has shown that children of authoritarian parents tend to develop behavioral problems. These results are consistent with the findings of previous research (Darling, 1999) which indicated that authoritarian parenting style of mothers and fathers was positively related with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems of the children.

A plausible explanation for these results can be that a child reared without affection faces a hard struggle, being young and weak he cannot protect himself and fulfill his realistic needs. A child is burdened heavily by the demands of the parents and do not have even little freedom to express himself. Having received no affection, he ultimately learns not to expect it. He learns to expect nothing or to expect worst. Under conditions of parental control it will be hard for him to develop confidence in his own worth. He eventually hesitates to express himself and tends to internalize the loneliness and helplessness which leads to internalizing behavior problems. These findings are supplemented but other researchers as well (Krampen, 1989; Levenson, 1973; MacDonald, 1971; Nowicki & Segal, 1974). Results showed that authoritarian parenting style of both mothers and fathers was positively associated with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems of the children. Some others interpretations seem plausible for this pattern. When parents try to enforce rules without explaining them and when they demand questioning authority, child may perceive it unreasonable and may show external behavior such as aggression. These findings are also in accordance with findings of Fergusson et al., (1994) found positive correlation between authoritarian parenting and adolescents delinquency. In consistent with these findings Crockenberg and Langrock (1996) found that pre-school age children whose parents use harsh and coercive parenting style have greater peer relationship problems, are more aggressive, show diminished social competence.

Existing research literature indicated that permissive parenting has been linked to bossy, dependent, impulsive behavior, aggressive and deviant behavior of children (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch et al., 1987). However, it was not fully supported by the findings of the current study. The results of the present study indicated that permissive parenting style of the fathers and mothers have positive relationship with behavior problems of children. However, only permissive parenting style of fathers was found to be a significant predictor of externalizing behavioral problems of the children. It could be inferred that in Pakistani culture father is considered as authority figure usually for male child. During early childhood, fathers are more lenient and permissive with their children, but as child grows older, father assumed their distant role. The distance in relationship is intended to create the position of authority, respect, and fear that the bond commanded (Wolf, 1970). When fathers show permissive parenting style to their sons who loose the authority; it turns them to aggressive behavior. For example, the research by Maccoby and Martin (1983) revealed that children’s’ aggressiveness was associated with parental permissiveness. Nonsignificant findings for the permissive parenting style of mothers can be explained by the fact that role of mother in our culture is different from other cultures. In contrast to the role of fathers in Asian families, the role of mothers were traditionally characterized as being affectionate, kind, lenient, protective., and even indulgent (Ho, 1989). The main function of the maternal role was to act as the primary caregiver. Mothers monitor the emotional well being of the family (Uba, 1994). Children perceive their mothers as supportive and protective. The support of mother has a mediating role between the paternal authority and the children’s adjustment (Lang, 1946).

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Present study only included parents only from middle socio economic status. However, for more representative sample parents from both low socio economic status and high socio economic status should be studied in order to be more confident in results. It is also suggested that effects of parenting styles on the behavior problems of the children should be studied in younger children below the age of 8 years. The phenomena of permissive parenting style should be explored in our indigenous culture to present real picture. Another limitation of the present study is the sole use of parent report measure for parenting styles and child behavior problems. Future studies should utilize multi-methods for data collection for more accurate and real picture. All important demographic variables which affects the parenting style and were not exclusively included in the current study should be explored to role out their affects on parenting style.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Aforementioned discussion revealed that only significant parenting style in Pakistani culture is authoritarian parenting style of fathers and mothers which positively predict behavior problems among children. Results of the present study highlighted important factors that should be considered while treating children with disruptive behavior problems. These findings might particularly be important when planning behavioral parent training in treating child behavior problems. Early identification of behavior problems of the children would help to educate the parents for prevention and cure of these behavioral problems by changing and modifying their parenting style. Recognition of negative parenting style facilitates the counselors and clinicians to educate parents about their parenting styles.

REFERENCES

1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/ 4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
2. Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/ 2-3 and 1992 Profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
3. Achoui, M. (2003). Children disciplining within the family context: Reality and attitudes. Al tofoolah A Arabiah, 16(4), 9-38.
4. Awan, A. A. (2001). Parenting styles and locus of control in children (Unpublished M. Phil. dissertation). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
5. Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38(2), 291-327.
6. Babree, S. (1997). Aggressive and non aggressive children perception of parental acceptance-rejection and control (Unpublished M. Phil. dissertation). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
7. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.
8. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-83.
9. Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255-272.
10. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-103.
11. Baumrind, D. (1977, March). Socialization determinants of personal agency. Paper presented at the convention of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.
12. Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
13. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse: Journal of Early Adolescents, 11, 56-95.
14. Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38(2), 291-327.
15. Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 17, 3-23.
16. Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Monuteaux, M., Spencer, T., Bober, M., & Cadogen, E. (2001). Gender effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults, revisited. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 692-700.
17. Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
18. Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike. (1973). Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Calzada, E. J., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Self-reported parenting practices in Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers of young children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 354-363.
20. Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Allied Disciplines, 36, 113-149.
21. Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Developmental Psychopathology, 12(3), 467-88.
22. Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Newman, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (1996). Behavioral observations at age 3 years predict adult psychiatric disorders: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. In M. E. Hertzig & E. A. Farber (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development: 1997 (pp. 319-331). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
23. Crockenberg, J., & Langrock, A. (1996). AutonomyandGoalAttainment: Parenting, Gender, and Children’s Social Competence. In M. Killen (Ed.), New direction in child development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
24. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
25. Darling, N. (1999). Parenting styles and its correlates. Eric Digest [online].
26. Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44-58.
27. Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., & Zahnaxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 23-45.
28. Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk disorder, and adaptation (pp. 42l-47l). New York: John Wiley & Sons
29. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting styles to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
30. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Farah, A., & Fayad, M. (2006). Parenting styles in Arab Societies: A first cross regional research study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 105-123.
31. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and psychological adjustment of Arab adolescents. Trans cultural Psychiatry, 41(2), 233-252.
32. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relation between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In J. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Child Development Monographs (pp. 147-66). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1994). Parental separation, adolescent psychopathology, and problem behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(8), 1122-1131.
34. Fershani, L. (1998). Parenting styles and siblings need for achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Algiers University, Algeria.
35. Gay, L. R. (1985). Educational evaluation and measurement. London: A Bell & Howell.
36. Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 687-697.
37. Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and social-communicative competence in childhood. In Greene, John, Burleson, R. & Brant R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills: Mahwah (pp. 753-797). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Herz, L., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between self-esteem and parenting style: A cross-cultural comparison of Australian and Vietnamese Australian adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(6), 742-761.
39. Ho, D. Y. F. (1989). Continuity and variation in Chinese patterns of socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(1), 149-163.
40. Jacob, T., & Johnson, S. L. (1997). Parent-child interaction among depressed fathers and mothers: Impact on child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 391-09
41. Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1995). The role of temperament in social development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 7(71), 485-90.
42. Krampen, G. (1989). Perceived child rearing practices and development of locus of control in early adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 177-193.
43. Laible, D. (2004). Mother-child discourse in two contexts: Links with child temperament, attachment security, and socio emotional competence. Developmental Psychology, 40, 979-992.
44. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Stenberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
45. Lang, O. (1946). Chinese family and society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
46. Levenson, E. E. (1973). Racial differences in indices of ego functioning relevant to academic achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 115, 153-167.
47. Liu, J. (2004). Childhood externalizing behavior: theory and implications. Journal of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(3), 93-103.
48. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. Journal of Child Psychology, 4, 71-101.
49. MacDonald, A. D. (1971). Internal-external Locus of control: Parental antecedents. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 37, 141-147.
50. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescents. In J, Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
51. McCord, J. (1988). Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 51(1), 14-23.
52. Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S. & McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers' hostile attribution tendencies and children's externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers' harsh discipline practices. Child Development, 70(4), 896-909.
53. Nowicki, S., & Segal, K. (1974). Relation of Family climate variables to locus of control in German and American studies. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 277-286.
54. O’Connor, R. (1993, July). Issues in the measurement of health-related quality of life. Paper presented at NHMRC National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www. busec o. monash. edu. au/centres/che/pubs/wp30. pdf.
55. Punamaki, R. L., Qouta, S., & El Sarraj, E. (1997). Relationships between traumatic events, children’s gender, and political activity, and perceptions of parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(1), 91-109.
56. Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Parenting styles and child behavior in African American families of preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31, 272-277.
57. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819-830.
58. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.
59. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
60. Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, 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, 47-58.
61. Tariq, N., & Hanif, R. (2007). Child Problem Checklist (Unpublished manuscript), National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
62. Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health coercion-neglect model. In T. Jacob (Eds.), Family interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 581-672). New York: Plenum Press.
63. Wolf, M. (1970). Child training and the Chinese family. In A. l. S. Chin & M. Freedman (Eds.), Family and kinship in Chinese society (pp. 37-62). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
64. Zakareya, K. (1999). Studies in the contemporary Arab society. Damascus, Syria: Al Ahali Publications.
65. Zaslow, M. J., Weinfield, N. S., Gallagher, M., Hair, E. C., Ogawa, J. R., Egeland, B., Tabors, P. O., & De Temple, J. M. (2006). Longitudinal prediction of child outcomes from differing measures of parenting in a low- income sample. Developmental Psychology, 42, 27-37.