Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Effects of parenting practices and socioeconomic status on domains of child development
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Terrisse, Bernard Roberts, Daniel L. |
| Copyright Year | 1998 |
| Abstract | Forty two-parent families with a child 4 to 6 years old participated in this study on the effects of the family environment. Parents completed the Family Environment Questionnaire (FEQ) while children were administered the Development and Maturity Inventory for Preschool Children (DMIP). The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) was also administered to each family. Children from a more advantaged milieu, according to the FEQ, where the home environment was more stimulating, according to the HOME, received higher scores in the four developmental domains (motor, social, language and cognitive) of the DMIP in comparison with children from a less advantaged milieu. It was also shown that mothers have a significant influence on the child's language and cognitive development while the influence of fathers is more evident on the child's motor and social development. However, mothers have in general more influence than fathers on child development. The differences observed in the performance of children on the DMIP were interpreted in terms of the influence of each parent and of proximal variables (e.g., attitudes and parenting practices) and distal variables (e.g., education and socioeconomic status). A multiple regression analysis showed proximal variables to be the better predictors of child development as compared with distal variables. Finally, among children from a more advantaged milieu, girls outperformed boys in the areas of social and language development, a phenomenon which was related to the mothers' high professional status. Family environment and child development 3 Introduction There are two major theories which dominate the literature on the effects of the family environment on child development. On the one hand, researchers such as Jenks et al. (l972) and Bryant et al. (l994) emphasize the influence of distal variables such as socioeconomic status (SES), including parents' educational and professional achievement. On the other hand, researchers such as Pourtois (l979) and Bradley & Caldwell (l995) emphasize proximal variables such as parenting practices and attitudes. Also, some researchers analyse the influence of these variables on particular domains of child development, mostly in the area of cognition (Lautrey, l980; Wilson & Matheny, l983), sometimes in the area of language (Bruner, l983), and, less often, in the area of socialization (Brophy, l970; Decovic & Janssens, l992). Socioeconomic status and parenting practices Most authors agree that the family's socioeconomic status has an influence on child development (Kohn, l977; Kohn & Schooler, l983; Erickson & Gecas, l991). Research shows that high-SES parents are more actively involved in the education of their children than low-SES parents. It is not surprising that these different levels of parental involvement have consequences for a number of social and personal characteristics related to the child. In particular, several studies show that parents' SES has an influence on a range of cognitive and affective variables (Graham, l984; Banks, l988), as well as psychomotor (Hade, 1988) and social variables (Ogbu, l981) in child development. In fact, middle and upper class parents have the means to provide toys, books and other educational materials that help children perform better on a full spectrum of behavioral tasks. Family environment and child development 4 However, certain aspects of the family environment (such as the parent-child relationship as well as parental behavior and attitudes) are more strongly correlated with child development than global measures such as SES (Bradley et al., l989). For example, Baumrind (l968, l971) showed that authoritarian and authoritative parents have different values and attitudes which guide their parenting practices. Authoritarian parents tend to inculcate in their children conventional values, such as a liking for work and a respect for authority, while authoritative parents encourage liberal values, such as an appreciation for communication skills and self-expression. Baumrind (l968, l971) also found that authoritative parents, who are more controlling and affectionate, have children who are more self-confident, autonomous and trusting. By contrast, authoritarian parents, who are more restricting, have children who are more dependent, less confident and more dogmatic. There is also evidence that children from authoritative homes, who score higher than children from authoritarian homes on measures of social and instrumental competence, have more adaptive behavior (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg, 1990). In addition, authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles have been found to reflect differences in the values and living conditions of different classes. Ojha and Sinha (1982) report that middle class people's living conditions are such that their values focus on endeavors and self-direction, whereas the living conditions of the working class are such that values focus on conformity and compliance. Sex differences and parental behavior Parenting practices also differ with respect to the sex of the parent and the sex of the child, influencing in different ways the child's development. Collins & Russell (l991) report that fathers place more emphasis on visuo-motor skills in their Family environment and child development 5 sons and verbal skills in their daughters. The research literature also shows that mothers are more likely to use reasoning and nurturing behavior to achieve their parenting goals while fathers use more forceful techniques based on parental authority and power (Bentley & Fox, l991; Volling & Belsky, l992; Pruett, l993). Parenting practices in turn contribute to the development of sex differences in the child. According to Block (l984) children as young as 3 years old were found to have a clear concept of their sexual identity and showed well established differences in patterns of play and emotional expression, with boys displaying more extrinsic and agentic behavior (e.g., competition in the form of aggression, self-reliance, and independence) and girls showing more intrinsic and communal behavior (e.g., cooperation, nurturance and greater emotional expression). These behaviors have repercussions for both boys and girls on their future relationships with others, their social development and their skills. Evaluation of the effects of family environment The family environment, being educational and structured, has an effect on the development of the child. However, the covariation between socioeconomic variables and parenting practices in different areas of child development could be studied further in order to better define the impact these variables have on the various areas of child development. It was therefore the goal of this study, on the one hand, to differentiate distal from proximal variables, and, on the other hand, to study their impact on different areas of child development. Previous research in the field has limited the study of the effects of these variables to a single domain, mainly that of cognitive functioning. This study was also new in that it studied the effects of sex differences in parenting practices while the majority of previous research in the field focused on the behavior of mothers. Family environment and child development 6 To achieve the goals of this study, two new measuring instruments were used: the Family Environment Questionnaire (FEQ) (Terrisse & Dansereau, l990; Dansereau & Terrisse, l991) and the Development and Maturity Inventory for Preschool Children (DMIP) (Terrisse & Dansereau, l992). The FEQ was used to determine the quality of the child's environment based on sociometric variables (distal variables) which are known to foster or hinder child development. As most of the inventories for the measurement of child development center on intellectual processes and give little information about motor or social functioning, the DMIP was used as it attempts to overcome this limitation by evaluating several aspects of development (psychomotor, social, language and cognitive). It was predicted that the child's performance on the DMIP would vary according to parenting practices (measured by the HOME) and family environment (measured by the FEQ). Furthermore, distal variables (e.g., parents' education and family income) as measured by the FEQ and proximal variables (e.g., parenting practices and attitudes) as measured by the HOME (Caldwell & Bradley, l986) were expected to have a differential impact on domains of child development. The sex roles of parents were also expected to influence domains of child development. Finally, it was predicted that proximal variables would be the best predictors of child development. Family environment and child development 7 Method Subjects Forty children (20 boys and 20 girls) and their parents (French Quebecers) participated in the study. Only biparental families were used so that sex differences in parental variables could be studied. The sample therefore included 80 parents; i.e., 40 fathers and 40 mothers. Ages of children ranged from four to six years (M = 4.68), and that of parents from 20 to 40 years (M = 33.29). Families were referred by social agencies or CLSCs (Centre Locaux de Services Communautaires), and were selected on the basis of SES; that is, according to educational level, occupational status and family income (see Conseil de l'Île de Montréal, l989). Parents (and children) were divided into two groups (more vs. less advantaged family environment) by median split according to family income. Advantaged parents made over $40,000 (CAN.) per year while less advantaged parents earned below $25,000. More advantaged parents also had more education ( 2(4, N = 40) = 6.86, p < .01) and occupational status ( 2(4, N = 40) = 3.88, p < .05). Measuring instruments In this study, three instruments were used, two of which were recently constructed, being: (1) the Development and Maturity Invent |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4660/14687_114337.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
