European Journal of Developmental Psychology Parenting and ...

This article was downloaded by: [Melhuish, Edward] On: 17 May 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 921782607] Publisher Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Developmental Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713684600

Parenting and preschool child behaviour among Turkish immigrant, migrant and non-migrant families Melek Daglara; Edward Melhuisha; Jacqueline Barnesa a Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK First published on: 29 April 2010

To cite this Article Daglar, Melek , Melhuish, Edward and Barnes, Jacqueline(2011) 'Parenting and preschool child

behaviour among Turkish immigrant, migrant and non-migrant families', European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8: 3, 261 — 279, First published on: 29 April 2010 (iFirst) To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17405621003710827 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405621003710827

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 2011, 8 (3), 261–279

Parenting and preschool child behaviour among Turkish immigrant, migrant and non-migrant families Melek Daglar, Edward Melhuish and Jacqueline Barnes

Downloaded By: [Melhuish, Edward] At: 16:30 17 May 2011

Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK

When families migrate the new culture and culture of origin may conflict, with possible consequences for parenting and children’s development. Turks form one of the largest immigrant groups in Western Europe, and there is also much movement within Turkey. This study compares three groups; Turkish immigrants to the UK (N ¼ 142), migrants within Turkey (N ¼ 229), and Turkish non-migrants (locals, N ¼ 396). The children were 39–71 months old (M ¼ 58 months, SD ¼ 6.5), 392 were boys and 375 were girls. Parents supplied data on family characteristics and parenting, and teachers supplied data on children’s behaviour. Using Baumrind’s parenting model and allowing for background effects, compared to non-migrants and migrants, the immigrant parents were less permissive and more authoritarian. Children in immigrant families had more externalizing problems, internalizing problems and emotional dysregulation and less social competence than migrant and nonmigrant children. Multilevel models and structural equation models both found that these effects upon child behaviour were evident after taking into account demographic factors and were not eliminated by taking into account parenting style differences, and thus suggest that immigration and migration are risk factors for child behaviour. Effects of immigrant and migrant status were partly direct and partly indirect via their effects on parenting. Keywords: Child behaviour; Immigration; Migration; Parenting style; Preschool children.

Children are born into families that are influenced by the surrounding culture and parents’ cultural roots. Migration is increasingly part of life and in many countries immigrant families are a substantial part of the population. For example children in immigrant families account for nearly one-in-four children in the USA (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008).

Correspondence should be addressed to Edward Melhuish, Institute for the Study of Children, Families & Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London, 7 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3RA, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Ó 2010 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/edp

DOI: 10.1080/17405621003710827


262

DAGLAR, MELHUISH, BARNES

When families migrate the new culture and parents’ culture of origin may conflict, leading to stress within the family and parenting problems, which may cause children’s psychological difficulties (Kia-Keating, 2006). We can distinguish three groups in relation to migration: immigrant (between countries); migrant (within country); and local (non-migrant) families. For these groups there may well be differing consequences for parenting and child development. This paper focuses on such possible differences. Some studies have found that children of first-generation migrant families are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems. Diler, Avci, and Seydaoglu (2003), for instance, found lower self-esteem and increased depression and anxiety among 10- to 12-year-old children of families who had migrated within Turkey. Where migration is between countries the stress associated with migration may well be greater. A study of London secondaryschool children (Leavey et al., 2004) found more difficulties, particularly emotional symptoms and peer problems, among immigrant, predominantly Kurdish, children than their UK-born counterparts. Also Mohammadi, Taylor, and Fombonne (2006) found more psychological problems for Iranian immigrant children, aged 6–15 years, in the UK than for similar-aged children living in Iran, particularly for anxiety/depression and for aggressive behaviour. In the Netherlands, Janssen et al. (2004) found that self-reported emotional and behavioural problems were greater for Turkish immigrant adolescents than their Dutch peers. On the other hand, while Derluyn, Broekaert, and Schuyten (2008) report higher levels of peer problems and avoidance for immigrant adolescents in Belgium compared to Belgian peers, externalizing behaviour, hyperactivity and anxiety were lower for the immigrant adolescents. Thus some (but not all) emotional and behavioural problems for children may be greater in migrant and immigrant families. However, different immigrant groups may have different experiences. Stevens et al. (2003) found that Turkish and Moroccan immigrant groups in the Netherlands with similar migration histories and from somewhat similar cultures differed in that teachers reported higher levels of externalizing problems for the Moroccan boys than their Dutch and Turkish counterparts, although Turkish parents reported more problems than Dutch and Moroccan counterparts. Similarly Murad, Joung, van Lenthe, Bengi-Arslan, and Crijnen (2003) found more self-reported behaviour problems among Turkish immigrant adolescents than Dutch counterparts. Another Dutch study found that immigrant parents were less likely to recognize externalizing problems in their children than Dutch parents (Zwirs, Burger, Schulpen, & Buitelaar, 2006). Baumrind (1971) focused on which style of discipline is optimal for child development and described three models of parental control that differentiate parents on the basis of their authority over their children and their level of child-centeredness. The authoritative parenting style (demanding


PARENTING, CHILD BEHAVIOUR, AND IMMIGRATION

263

but child-centred) is a constellation of parent attributes that includes emotional support and clear, bi-directional communication, firm limit setting, reasoning, and responsiveness. The authoritarian parenting style (demanding and adult-centred) consists of punitive and directive discipline strategies. The permissive parenting style (undemanding and child-centred) places few demands or restrictions on the child. From another perspective, Kagitcibasi (1990, 2007) has proposed three distinct family interaction patterns: (1) traditional—with intergenerational interdependence; (2) individual—generational independence; and (3) dialectical synthesis of (1) and (2) with material independence but emotional interdependence between generations. Rural Turkish families typically show the traditional pattern. While in modern urban societies, patterns (2) and (3) with greater child independence are most common. As Kagitcibasi (2003) pointed out, immigrant families from rural origins maintain traditional collectivistic values of interdependence. It is likely that migration will have an impact on both discipline and the overall relationship between generations. Hence for a family migrating from traditional rural environments to an urban setting, child independence may be seen as a threat to the family, because the child will focus on individual rather than family welfare. Yet in modern urban societies family interactions emphasizing intergenerational independence are common where parents ‘‘let go’’ of the child to allow individuation—separation and the development of autonomy, which is regarded as healthy development. In such contexts family interdependence might be regarded as dysfunctional. Similarly Kwak (2003) has argued that immigrant parents show little change in values, and their children adapt better to the host society than parents who are likely to maintain the values of the culture of origin. Hence intergenerational conflict may arise. With regard to discipline there is probably an interaction between immigrant family values and the demands of the new context. Possibly immigrant parents behave more strictly to try to maintain traditional family values, which may be maladaptive in the new context. This is congruent with the finding from Kotchick and Forehand (2002) that African-American, Asian-American and Latino parents are more authoritarian than EuropeanAmerican, parents. In addition, Turkish parents are traditionally more likely to have an authoritarian style, with the father making most decisions (Fisek & Sunar, 2005). A study of childrearing practices in three generations of urban middle-class Turkish families showed continuities and changes over generations (Sunar, 2002). All three generations emphasized the importance of the family over the individual, with newer generations moving towards more authoritative and less authoritarian parenting, with more use of rewards and reasoning and encouragement of independence, though girls still received more control than boys.


264


Parents may behave in a more restrictive manner to protect their children from perceived risk (Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002), when living in a new, unfamiliar country or one where the language is different to their own. This could have unfortunate consequences in that harsh or restrictive parenting is likely to lead to subsequent child problems (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Harkness & Super, 1995; Pearson & Rao, 2003). Also relevant is the issue of acculturation. Sociocultural difficulties in migrant populations have been linked to cultural incongruity and less interaction and identification with host nationals, which indicates lower acceptance of the host culture (Bhugra & Arya, 2005; Hazuda, Stern, & Haffner, 1988). However, adaptation to the host culture is in turn associated with fewer child emotional and behaviour problems (Bhugra & Bhui, 1998; Sowa, Crijnen, Bengi-Arslan, & Verhulst, 2000). Migration effects and the relevance of acculturation are often estimated by comparison with the local population but migration between countries (immigration) compounds cultural, linguistic and migration status. However, it is possible that immigrant (between countries) and migrant (within a country) groups differ on unmeasured individual differences that may be relevant. Also, other factors may be important (e.g., language barriers, discrimination against immigrant but not migrant families) in comparing migration groups and locals, which means that the usual comparisons do not fully explore the relevance of migration status versus being from another culture. An alternative strategy is to compare migrant and non-migrant groups in the same culture, which identifies the impact of a new location with no language change (and probably less discrimination); and then to compare both these groups with similar families who have moved to a new country. Turks form one of the largest immigrant groups in Western Europe, and there is migration within Turkey in addition to immigration to other countries (Crul & Vermeulen, 2003). When they move, Turkish families often maintain strong links to Turkish culture, with traditional family values, limited contact with host community, preference for Turkish marriage partners, and maintenance of the Turkish language between generations (Crul & Doomernick, 2003), all factors that limit the host culture (Berry, 1992). In order to investigate the different risks associated with migration and immigration, for parenting style and for child development, this study investigated three groups; Turkish immigrants to the UK, migrants within Turkey, and Turkish non-migrants (locals). It was predicted that parenting would be more authoritarian, and child behaviour problems more evident, for immigrant (between countries) compared to migrant (within country) or local (non-migrant) families, and to a lesser extent for migrant families compared to local families. Also relevant and likely to support the hypothesized differences are additional contextual


265

factors such as discrimination against immigrant but not migrant groups, but the relevant stressors would be least for the local group, who might be anticipated to have the most optimal parenting. The study involved preschool children and their families, and is the first study (to our knowledge) of migration with families of children at this young age.

METHOD


Participants Recruitment took place in preschool centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and Turkey in areas home to recently migrated families. Participants were 767 families with 4- to 6-year-old preschool children (392 boys and 375 girls; age range ¼ 39–71 months, M ¼ 58 months, SD ¼ 6.5). The participation rate was 97% of all families approached. Participants in Turkey were from two neighbouring cities—Istanbul and Kocaeli and were classified as either ‘‘local’’ or ‘‘migrant’’ according to whether they had lived in the city for less or more than five years, since this time period would include most or all of the target child’s life. The Turkish migrant families (N ¼ 229) had all lived in their current city less than 5 years. The Turkish local families (N ¼ 396) had all lived more than 5 years in their current city, and usually for much longer (see Table 1). Participants in the UK (‘‘immigrant’’) lived in London (N ¼ 142), the majority in neighbourhoods with substantial Turkish populations. Unfortunately selection based on time in the UK was not feasible and all had been resident for several years or more. All migrant and immigrant families were first-generation migrants, and appeared to have migrated for ‘‘a better life’’, i.e., primarily economic reasons. See Table 1 for more details of participant characteristics.

Procedure Parents and teachers received a letter describing the goals and methods of the study, and signed informed consent was obtained. Mothers were interviewed at home by a Turkish-speaking woman when questionnaires were also completed. Sometimes fathers were also present, but the mother was always the main respondent. Teachers at the preschool completed questionnaires. All interview questions and questionnaires were translated into Turkish and back translated into English by different professional translators. A pilot study with Turkish parents ensured there were no problems resulting from translation that could cause misunderstanding. All interviews and questionnaires for all parents in Turkey or the UK were in Turkish as were questionnaires for teachers in Turkey; teachers in England completed questionnaires in English.

266



TABLE 1 Characteristics of the study groups

Resident 1–3 years Resident 3–5 years Resident 5–10 years Resident 10–15 years Resident 16þ years Mother rural origin Father rural origin Family socioeconomic status High level Low level Self employed Unemployed Family education University/college High school Elementary/secondary

Immigrant (N ¼ 142) N (%)

Migrant (N ¼ 229) N (%)

Local (N ¼ 396) N (%)

8 14 57 33 30 100 92

(5.6) (9.9) (40.2) (23.2) (16.1) (70.4) (64.7)

116 (50.7) 113 (49.3) 0 0 0 96 (41.9) 107 (46.7)

118 144 134 60 96

0 0 (29.8) (36.4) (33.8) (15.2) (24.2)

3 31 52 56

(2.1) (21.8) (36.6) (39.4)

45 77 104 3

99 112 176 9

(25.0) (28.3) (44.4) (2.3)

(19.7) (33.6) (45.4) (1.3)

Tests and significance

w2(2) ¼ 154.3*** w2(2) ¼ 107.8*** w2(6) ¼ 218.6***

w2(4) ¼ 161.8*** 17 (12.0) 44 (13.2) 81 (57.0)

83 (36.2) 107 (46.7) 39 (17.0)

179 (45.2) 183 (46.2) 34 (8.6)

Note: ***p 5 .001.

Measures. Parent interview questions covered children’s birth details, activities in the home, caregivers, parents’ education and occupation, family structure, and migration history including parental place of rearing (rural or urban). Parents completed a 32-item version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001). The 32 items (answered using a 5-point scale; 1 ¼ never, 5 ¼ always) produce 7 subscale scores that are combined to identify a predominant style, one of three classifications (Baumrind, 1971); authoritative (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .86), authoritarian (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .82) and permissive (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .64). Teachers completed the Child Behaviour Scale (CBS; Ladd & Profilet, 1996), and an Extended Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (ESDQ; Belsky, Melhuish, Barnes, Leyland, & Romaniuk, 2006). The CBS had 59 items and 6 subscales: aggressive with peers; prosocial with peers; excluded by peers; asocial with peers; hyperactive–distractible; and anxious–fearful (mean Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .75). The ESDQ had 40 items describing social/emotional behaviour to derive the 5 original Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) subscales: emotional problems; conduct problems; hyperactivity–inattention; peer problems; and prosocial behaviour plus 3 additional subscales: independence; emotional dysregulation; and co-operation, where the extra items had been derived from questionnaires used by


267

Sammons et al. (2004; mean Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .73). Both CBS and ESDQ items were scored on a 3-point scale; not true, sometimes true, certainly true.


Statistical analysis The 14 subscales of the ESDQ and CBS were transformed to standardized scores (M ¼ 0; SD ¼ 1) with a common measurement scale. Principal components analysis (with oblique rotation) was conducted to reduce the number of dependent variables and thereby reduce the likelihood of chance significant results. Subscales were assigned to the component on which they had the highest positive loading and then averaged to produce a composite factor. Five composite child behaviour factors (accounting for 67% the variance) emerged (see Table 2). They were labelled to reflect the contributing subscales: externalizing behaviour; hyperactivity; internalizing behaviour; emotional dysregulation; and social competence, and constituted the child behaviour outcomes. Multilevel models were used to take account of the clustering of children within preschool centres. The independent variables considered as predictors of parenting and child behaviour were: child gender; birth weight; number of siblings; parents’ age; highest parental educational level; socioeconomic

TABLE 2 Child behaviour constructs derived from principal components analysis Component

Emotional problems (ESDQ) Conduct problems (ESDQ) Hyperactivity–inattention (ESDQ) Peer problems (ESDQ) Prosocial behaviour (ESDQ) Independence (ESDQ) Co-operation (ESDQ) Emotional dysregulation (ESDQ) Aggressive with peers (CBS) Prosocial with Peers (CBS) Asocial with peers (CBS) Excluded by peers (CBS) Anxious-fearful (CBS) Hyperactive-distractible (CBS)

11

2

3

4

5

0.25 0.622 0.26 0.81 70.68 70.30 70.65 0.18 0.63 70.63 0.43 0.83 0.38 0.20

0.10 0.25 0.96 0.19 70.17 70.10 70.08 0.15 0.36 70.13 0.09 0.22 0.09 0.96

0.86 70.38 0.04 0.28 70.25 70.08 70.25 0.03 –0.02 70.19 0.20 0.29 0.50 0.01

0.11 0.31 0.15 0.47 –0.41 –0.13 70.04 0.86 0.10 –0.36 0.56 0.47 0.44 0.11

70.11 70.23 70.06 70.39 0.37 0.89 0.34 70.04 0.18 0.37 70.34 70.39 70.28 70.01

Notes: 1Component labels: 1 ¼ externalizing; 2 ¼ hyperactivity; 3 ¼ internalizing; 4 ¼ emotional dysregulation; 5 ¼ social competence. 2Loading in italics indicates the subscale is included in that component. EDSQ ¼ Extended Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; CBS ¼ Child Behaviour Scale.

268



status (SES; highest parental occupational status); and migration status. In addition interaction effects for gender 6 parent education, gender 6 occupational status, and gender 6 migration status were tested. Non-significant variables were dropped from the final models. Logistic multilevel models were used to identify predictors for categorical outcomes (parenting classification) and linear multilevel models for continuous outcomes (child behaviour). There were two steps; first all predictors were entered, then gender 6 parent education, gender 6 occupational status and gender 6 migration status interactions were added. For child behaviour outcomes a third step added parenting classification to the model. Finally, structural equation models were used to link all variables in the study and test alternative interpretations of relationships between predictors and outcomes.

RESULTS Participant characteristics The three groups were similar for child’s birth weight and parents’ ages (see Table 1). The proportion of parents of rural origin differed. The majority of the immigrant group parents and just under half the migrant group parents but less than a quarter of the local group had been born in a rural area. More of the immigrant group had lower educational level and lower SES while the migrant and local groups did not differ markedly. The migrant group had slightly lower educational and SES levels than the local group.

Parenting style The PSDQ produces 7 subscale scores. The subscales connection, regulation and autonomy produce an authoritative dimension score, the subscale indulgent produces a permissive dimension score, and the subscales physical coercion, verbal hostility and punitive produce an authoritarian dimension score. The largest dimension score defines the predominant parenting style as one of three categories, authoritative, authoritarian or permissive (see introduction). Forty percent of parents were predominantly permissive, just over a third authoritative (35%), and a smaller group predominantly authoritarian (24%). Group differences. The immigrant, migrant and local groups differed. In particular only 19% of immigrant parents showed authoritative parenting, while 28% were permissive and more than half (54%) were authoritarian. In contrast 34% of the migrant parents were authoritative, 43% permissive and only 23% authoritarian. For the local group 42% of parents were


269


authoritative, 44% permissive and only 14% authoritarian. Comparing the three groups on parenting classification indicates significant differences, w2(4, n ¼ 767) ¼ 89.1, p 5 .0001. Predicting parenting style. The results of logistic multilevel models for each parenting classification are shown in Table 3. The final model for authoritative parenting indicated that this was less likely for girls (27%) than boys (43%). Where parents had a high school or college/university education authoritative parenting was more likely as compared to parents with elementary/secondary education. After allowing for these variables, migration status was not significantly related to the likelihood of authoritative parenting. There were no significant interactions involving gender, parent education or migration. The final model for permissive parenting revealed that it was less likely for parents with a college/university education (see Table 3), compared to parents with elementary/secondary education, and those with high-school education were not different to those with elementary/secondary education. Allowing for parent education, permissive parenting was less frequent in the immigrant group, but there was no significant difference between the migrant (43%) and local (44%) groups. There were no significant interactions involving gender, parent education or migration group. Predominantly authoritarian parenting (see Table 3) was more likely for girls (36%), than for boys (13%). A significant gender 6 parent education interaction indicated that the effect of parental education differed for boys and girls. Separate analyses for boys and girls revealed that parental education had a significant effect for boys only. Boys were less likely to receive authoritarian parenting when parents had a high-school education, and particularly when parents had a college/university education. Also, allowing for the above effects, for both boys and girls, authoritarian parenting was more likely for the immigrant group than the local group. In summary, authoritative parenting was more likely for boys, while authoritarian parenting was more likely for girls. Authoritative parenting increased as parent education increased. Permissive parenting was less likely for parents with a college/university education, and in the immigrant group. Authoritarian parenting increased in the immigrant group and for boys only decreased with greater parent education.

Child behaviour Group differences. Comparing the standardized scores for the child behaviour constructs (see Table 4), one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) identified significant group differences for all five. For externalizing behaviour, F(2, 764) ¼ 61.74, p 5 .001, all groups were significantly different

270

2

ns ns

41.9 34.1 19.0

1.98 to 6.93 10.07 to 35.59

3.71*** 18.93***

9.1 26.3 60.6 43.7 42.8 27.5

40.9 53.0 25.1

43.9 36.8

0.32 to 0.64

0.45***

43.4 26.9

Observed (%) Permissive

95% confidence interval

Authoritative

Odds ratio

ns 0.40***

ns 0.27***

ns

Odds ratio

0.22 to 0.72

0.19 to 0.39


14.4 23.1 53.5

boys2 39.1 boys2 9.7 boys2 4.1

12.8 36.3

Authoritarian2

Observed (%)

ns 3.60***

0.25*** 0.11***

4.17***

Odds ratio

2.22 to 5.86

0.12 to 0.52 0.04 to 0.21

2.81 to 6.20


Notes: Comparison group. For authoritarian parenting style the gender and immigration effects reflect the whole sample. The effect of parent education on authoritarian parenting style only significant for boys, figures in italics represent data for boys only. *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; ***p 5 .001.

1

Parenting style Gender Boys1 Girls Parental education Elementary/secondary1 High school College/university Migration Local1 Migrant Immigrant

Observed (%)

TABLE 3 Results of binary logistic regressions to identify factors predicting parenting style classification



271


TABLE 4 Child behaviour standardized scores by group

Group

Externalizing Mean (SD)

Hyperactivity Mean (SD)

Internalizing Mean (SD)

Emotional dysregulation Mean (SD)

Social competence Mean (SD)

Immigrant Migrant Local Total

0.69 0.11 70.31 0.00

0.51 0.18 70.11 0.00

0.61 70.05 70.19 0.00

0.55 0.00 70.20 0.00

70.29 70.04 0.13 0.00

(0.79) (0.96) (0.96) (1.00)

(1.08) (0.92) (0.96) (1.00)

(0.97) (0.86) (1.00) (1.00)

(1.08) (0.97) (0.91) (1.00)

(0.84) (1.00) (1.03) (1.00)

(post hoc Sheffe, p 5 .005), the immigrant group having the highest score, followed by the migrant group with the local children having the least externalizing behaviour. For hyperactivity, F(2, 764) ¼ 23.89, p 5 .001, internalizing problems, F(2, 764) ¼ 37.144, p 5 .001, and emotional dysregulation, F(2, 764) ¼ 31.84, p 5 .001, the immigrant group had significantly more problems than the migrant and local groups, which did not differ from each other. For social competence, F(2, 764) ¼ 9.68, p 5 .001, the local group had a higher score than both migrant and immigrant groups, who did not differ from each other. Replicating the comparisons for boys and girls separately all results were the same except that for boys the group difference for hyperactivity was less marked, F(2, 389) ¼ 3.70, p 5 .5, and post hoc tests only differentiated the immigrant group from the local group. Predicting child behaviour. A summary of the effect size (ES; in standard deviation units) for statistically significant predictors from the final multilevel models for behaviour outcomes is shown in Table 5. The model for externalizing behaviour indicated less externalizing behaviour for girls (ES ¼ 0.43, p 5 .001) and less externalizing behaviour for the children of parents with a high school (ES ¼ 0.34, p 5 .001), or college/university education (ES ¼ 0.42, p 5 .001) compared to children of parents with less education. There was more externalizing behaviour for the children in migrant (ES ¼ 0.27, p 5 .001) and immigrant (ES ¼ 0.52, p 5 .001) groups than for the local group. In terms of parenting style, more externalizing behaviour was associated with both permissive (ES ¼ 0.71, p 5 .001) and authoritarian (ES ¼ 0.99, p 5 .001) parenting (as compared with authoritative). Hyperactivity was less for girls (ES ¼ 0.44, p 5 .001) and there was a significant gender interaction with the immigrant group. For SES comparisons the unemployed group was the reference (comparison) category (lowest point of scale). Children of all employed parents showed less hyperactivity than those with unemployed parents (low SES: ES ¼ 0.41, p 5 .01; high SES: ES ¼ 0.42, p 5 .05; self-employed: ES ¼ 0.28, p ¼ .07).

272


TABLE 5 Summary of multilevel models for child behaviour showing effect sizes (in standard deviation units) for statistically significant predictors

Externalizing

Hyperactivity

Internalizing

Emotional dysregulation

Social competence

74

48

53

34

70.29** 70.35**

0.14**

Variance 39 explained (%) Child gender—comparison ‘‘boy’’ Girl 70.43***

70.44***


Parent education—comparison ‘‘elementary’’ High School 70.34*** College 70.42*** SES—comparison ‘‘unemployed’’ Low Self-employed High Migration—comparison ‘‘local’’ Immigrant 0.52*** Migrant 0.27***

70.41** 70.280 70.42* girls1 0.68***

Parenting—comparison ‘‘authoritative’’ Permissive 0.71*** Authoritarian 0.99***

0.35***

0.37*** 70.19* 70.190

0.17*

0.72***

0.40***

70.66*** 70.27***

0.28*** 0.51***

0.29** 0.44***

70.69*** 71.03***

Notes: 1For hyperactivity the effect of immigrant compared to local group was significant only for girls. 0p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; ***p 5 .001.

Separate analyses for boys and girls revealed that, for girls only, there was greater hyperactivity among the immigrant group compared to the local group (ES ¼ 0.68, p 5 .001). When parenting was added to the model for all children, authoritarian (but not permissive) parenting was associated with increased hyperactivity as compared with authoritative parenting (ES ¼ 0.35, p 5 .001). There was more internalizing behaviour for girls (ES ¼ 0.37, p 5 .001). Also children of self-employed (ES ¼ 0.17, p 5 .05) parents were reported by teachers to have more internalizing behaviour. The immigrant group showed substantially more internalizing behaviour (ES ¼ 0.72, p 5 .0001) in contrast to children in the migrant group, who were equivalent to the local group. Both permissive (ES ¼ 0.28, p 5 .0001) and particularly authoritarian parenting (ES ¼ 0.51, p 5 .0001) were associated with more internalizing behaviour (compared to authoritative parenting). Children whose parents had a high-school education (ES ¼ 0.29, p 5 .01) or better (ES ¼ 0.35, p 5 .01) were reported to show less emotional dysregulation. Immigrant children were said to have more emotional dysregulation (ES ¼ 0.40, p 5 .001). Emotional dysregulation was also



273

greater for children whose parents were either permissive (ES ¼ 0.29, p 5 .01) or authoritarian (ES ¼ 0.44, p 5 .001) compared to children of authoritative parents. Initial effects for parents’ education on social competence became nonsignificant when parenting style was added. In the final model children in both immigrant (ES ¼ 0.66, p 5 .001) and migrant (ES ¼ 0.27, p 5 .001) groups showed substantially less social competence than the local group. There was significantly less social competence shown by children in the permissive (ES ¼ 0.69, p 5 .001) and authoritarian (ES ¼ 1.03, p 5 .001) parenting groups compared to the authoritative group. For all five child behaviour variables the effects of migration status were not significantly reduced when parenting classification was added to the model, thus indicating that the migration had effects upon child behaviour that were independent of parenting effects. Structural equation models were used to consider simultaneously the relationships between all significant predictor variables and all parenting and child behaviour variables in the study. Three types of model were compared: 1. No mediation: All predictors have independent effects upon child behaviour. 2. Full mediation: Parent and child characteristics have effects upon parenting, which then affects child behaviour, but no independent effects upon child behaviour. 3. Partial mediation: Parent and child characteristics have independent effects upon child behaviour as well as effects mediated through parenting. In the models, the PSDQ subscale scores determining parenting classification were indicators of a latent variable of parenting, and the five child behaviour scores were indicators of a latent variable of child social adjustment. Parental education was treated as an ordinal variable, and dummy variables were created for immigrant (yes/no), migrant (yes/no) groups and for gender (boy: yes/no). The significant predictors from the multilevel models for child behaviours were included in the models and any paths not adding significantly to a reduction in chi-square were dropped. The best-fitting model was a partial mediation model, which showed a significant reduction in chi-square over both the no-mediation and full-mediation models (Dw2 ¼ 57 to 537, df ¼ 3 to 39, p 5 .0001). Also these models were consistent with the multilevel model results and all showed a good fit to the data (CFI 4 .95; RMSEA 5 .05, C1 0.03 to 0.06; Hoelter index 4 200). The partial mediation model is shown in Figure 1. Parent education only had an indirect effect upon the latent child social


274


Figure 1. Structural equation model. This shows relationships between PSDQ subscales and latent parenting variable, child behaviour scores and latent child social adjustment variable, and between parent education and immigration/migration status and latent variables.

adjustment variable through a direct effect on the latent parenting variable, which in turn influenced the latent child social adjustment variable. Gender had an indirect effect on child adjustment through its influence on the latent parenting variable and also a direct effect on child social adjustment. The immigrant and migrant groups had indirect effects on child social adjustment through their effects on the latent parenting variable and also direct effects on child social adjustment. In addition there were further indirect effects via parent education. In all direct and indirect paths the effects were stronger for the immigrant rather than migrant group.

DISCUSSION Results reported here indicate that immigrant parents had a more authoritarian parenting style than migrant or local parents, and that children in immigrant families had more externalizing problems, internalizing problems and emotional dysregulation and less social competence than



275

migrant and non-migrant children. Structural equation modelling indicated that immigrant and migrant status had both direct effects on child social adjustment and also indirect effects than involved paths via parent education and parenting. These effects suggest that immigration and migration are potential risk factors for child behaviour. The first hypothesis was confirmed in that immigrant parents were found to be more authoritarian. In addition, this study provides strong support for the usefulness, with Turkish parents, of Baumrind’s model of parenting, which was originally developed in the USA and proposes that authoritative parenting is associated with optimal development from the preschool years (Baumrind & Black, 1967) through to adolescence (Steinberg, Elman, & Mounts, 1989). In this sample of Turkish parents both permissive parenting and, more particularly, authoritarian parenting were associated with a greater likelihood of adverse child behaviours and a lesser likelihood of child behaviour that may be advantageous (i.e., social competence). Beyond the effects identified using this model of parenting, such as more authoritarian parenting directed to girls than boys, and more from parents with fewer educational qualifications, there was also, as predicted, an effect of migration status on parenting, being most marked when the family was immigrant. The three groups of parents were almost identical in age (mothers’ Mage ¼ 32–33 years; fathers’ Mage ¼ 36), so migration differences did not reflect age effects. Also, these results were found with preschool children, which have not been studied in previous research on immigration and migration. For both migrant and immigrant groups the higher likelihood of their using an authoritarian style of parenting may reflect anxiety about the local area, as many of the parents in both groups had been raised in rural areas that could seem more family friendly than urban locations. Beyond the possible influence of the stress of moving to a culture differing from their culture of origin, the immigrant group, for whom the effect was stronger, had the additional stress of living in a culture where the language was different and where cultural norms may be potentially challenging and have characteristics that they wished to protect their children from (e.g., possible discrimination). This is akin to the tendency of parents living in inner city environments to use more authoritarian strategies, as a means of protecting children from community danger or possibly harmful influences (Querido et al., 2002). The second hypothesis was also confirmed in that immigrant status was associated with more child behaviour problems, with a lesser but also significant effect of migration within Turkey. Taking into account child gender and family demographic characteristics, and parenting style, both groups were more likely to exhibit behaviour problems and relate less well to peers than children living in Turkey in families that were local to the area.


276


Specifically, immigrant children were likely to have more externalizing problems, internalizing problems and emotional dysregulation and less social competence with peers; and girls were likely to have more hyperactivity than the migrant or local groups. The findings from the multilevel models were supported by the structural equation models that indicated that immigration/migration status affects child social adjustment directly in addition to its effects upon parenting. This suggests that, beyond the tendency for immigrant parents to be more authoritarian, there may be additional stresses within the family and for the children living in a predominantly non-Turkish culture as they mix with peers that are risk factors for behavioural and emotional problems. This is congruent with evidence from Shrake and Rhee (2004) that cultural conflict can be associated with increased behaviour problems in Korean-American adolescents, and older immigrant children and adolescents in the UK (Leavey et al., 2004; Mohammadi et al., 2006). Children in the migrant group in Turkey were likely to have more externalizing problems and less social competence than children in families local to the area but it did not appear that they were more susceptible to internalizing or emotional problems. Possibly their parents’ moves led to some disruption and stress but the situation of living within a different culture, with the attendant language differences and cultural expectations posed a greater risk factor for children’s behavioural development (Berry, 1992). While authoritarian parenting was associated with more behaviour problems and less social competence, the effect of immigration was evident in addition to the parenting style effect. With regard to relationship identified between immigrant status and internalizing problems or emotional dysregulation, it is noteworthy that these problems are often less evident in the early years and only come to the attention of adults, teachers or parents when children display overt distress such as marked depression. There is potential to offer support for immigrant parents and their young children that include not only a focus on avoiding harsh discipline but also supporting the children to express their feelings about adaptation to the host culture. Sowa et al. (2000) found that problem behaviours in Turkish immigrant children in Holland were associated with low integration and that more integration leads to lower levels of problem behaviour. Generally, there is better functioning in children of immigrant parents who are successfully adapted in terms of psychological and sociocultural outcomes, socioeconomical and professional social status, who speak the language of the host culture well, and have supportive friends or ethnic community. Moreover, parental emotional well-being, family functioning, ethnic community vitality with strong social support network have all been linked to decreased levels of psychological stress (Sowa et al., 2000; Stansfeld et al., 2004). Hence, becoming assimilated into the host


277

culture may be protective for family functioning and children’s development. Adverse social conditions interact in a complex manner but this study indicates that immigrant or migrant status should be considered in addition to the more commonly studied demographic and family factors in understanding parenting and child behaviour.


Limitations of this study There may be unmeasured differences between the migration groups in this study that might enable more explanation of the differences identified in their parenting or their children (e.g., personality of parents). In addition it would have been useful to obtain details about reasons for migration or immigration, perceptions of the areas in which they lived, religious activity and (for the immigrant group) the extent to which they were acculturated into the UK, so that these factors could be linked with parenting practices. These could be the focus of further research. Manuscript received 8 January 2009 Revised manuscript accepted 29 January 2010 First published online 29 April 2010

REFERENCES Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behaviour. Child Development, 76, 1144–1159. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1–103. Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291–327. Belsky, J., Melhuish, E., Barnes, J., Leyland, A., Romaniuk, H., & the NESS Research Team. (2006). Effects of Sure Start local programmes on children and families: Early findings. British Medical Journal, 332, 1476–1478. Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration, 30, 69–86. Bhugra, D., & Arya, P. (2005). Ethnic density, cultural congruity and mental illness in migrants. International Review of Psychiatry, 17, 133–137. Bhugra, D., & Bhui, K. (1998). Transcultural psychiatry: Do problems persist in the second generation? Hospital Medicine, 59, 126–129. Crul, M., & Doomernik, J. (2003). The Turkish and Moroccan second generation in the Netherlands: Divergent trends between and polarization within the two groups. International Migration Review, 37, 1039–1064. Crul, M., & Vermeulen, H. (2003). The second generation in Europe. International Migration Review, 37, 965–986. Derluyn, I., Broekaert, E., & Schuyten, G. (2008). Emotional and behavioural problems in migrant adolescents in Belgium. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 17, 54–62. Diler, R. S., Avci, A., & Seydaoglu, G. (2003). Emotional and behavioural problems in migrant children. Swiss Medical Weekly, 133, 16–21.


278


Fisek, G. O., & Sunar, D. (2005). Contemporary Turkish families. In J. L. Roopnarine & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 169–183). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1995). Culture and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 211–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hazuda, H., Stern, M., & Haffner, S. (1988). Acculturation and assimilation among Mexican Americans: Scales and population-based data. Social Science Quarterly, 69, 687–705. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: Looking to America’s future. Social Policy Report, 22, 3–23. Janssen, M. M., Verhulst, F. C., Bengi-Arslan, L., Erol, N., Salter, C. J., & Crijnen, A. A. (2004). Comparison of self-reported emotional and behavioural problems in Turkish Immigrant, Dutch and Turkish adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 133–140. Kagitcibasi, C. (1990). Family and socialisation in cross-cultural perspective. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 135–200). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press. Kagitcibasi, C. (2003). Autonomy, embeddedness and adaptability in immigration contexts. Human Development, 46, 145–150. Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family and human development across cultures (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kia-Keating, M. (2006). Refugee youth in resettlement: Exposure to war and protective factors. PhD thesis, Boston University. Kotchick, A. B., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 255–269. Kwak, K. (2003). Adolescents and their parents: A review of intergenerational family relations for immigrant and non-immigrant families. Human Development, 46, 115–136. Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn and prosocial behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024. Leavey, G., Hollins, K., King, M., Barnes, J., Papadopoulos, C., & Grayson, K. (2004). Psychological disorder among refugee and migrant schoolchildren in London. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 191–195. Mohammadi, R., Taylor, E., & Fombonne, E. (2006). Prevalence of psychological problems among Iranian immigrant children and adolescents in UK. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 1, 12–18. Murad, S. D., Joung, I. M. A., van Lenthe, F. J., Bengi-Arslan, L., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2003). Predictors of self-reported problem behaviours in Turkish immigrant and Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 412–423. Pearson, E., & Rao, N. (2003). Socialization goals, parenting practices, and peer competence in Chinese and English preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 131–146. Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Parenting styles and child behaviour in African-American families of pre-school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31, 272–277. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSQD). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques. Vol. 3: Instruments & index (pp. 319– 321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



279

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Elliott, K., et al. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project. Technical paper 11: The continuing effect of pre-school education at age 7 years. London: Institute of Education. Shrake, E. K., & Rhee, S. (2004). Ethnic identity as a predictor of problem behaviours among Korean American adolescents. Adolescence, 39, 601–622. Sowa, H., Crijnen, A. A. M., Bengi-Arslan, L., & Verhulst, F. C. (2000). Factors associated with problem behaviours in Turkish immigrant children in the Netherlands. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 177–184. Stansfeld, S. A., Haines, M. M., Head, J. A., Bhui, K., Viner, R., Taylor, S. J. C., et al. (2004). Ethnicity, social deprivation and psychological distress in adolescents in east London. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 233–238. Steinberg, L., Elman, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436. Stevens, G., Pels, T., Bengi-Arslan, L., Verhulst, F. C., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2003). Parent, teacher and self-reported problem behavior in The Netherlands— Comparing Moroccan immigrant with Dutch and with Turkish immigrant children and adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 576–585. Sunar, D. (2002). Change and continuity in the Turkish middle class family. In R. Liljestrom & E. O¨zdalga (Eds.), Autonomy and dependence in the family. Istanbul, Turkey: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. Zwirs, B. W. C., Burger, H., Schulpen, T. W. J., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2006). Different treatment thresholds in non-Western children with behavioural problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 476–483.