Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 2431 – 2437
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
WCPCG-2011
Parenting styles and individualistic and collectivistic values (Considering transition mechanism or inter-generation non-transition) Azam Farah Bidjaria *, Asma Zahmatkeshb 1
2
a
Faculty of Education & Psychology, Al-Zahra University, Vanak, Tehran - P.O Box 1993891176, Iran Faculty of Education & Psychology, Al-Zahra University, Vanak, Tehran - P.O Box 1993891176, Iran
b
Abstract The aim of this study is considering the relation between the amount of individualistic and collectivistic values in three generations of daughters, mothers and grandmothers in Kerman (a city in south of Iran) and their educational styles and the relation between educational styles with the amount of individualistic and collectivistic values in children. The case study in this research consists of 120 girls and women above 16 years old that have been chosen by available sampling. Tools of research in this consideration are demographic, individualistic, collectivistic and parental connection questionnaires. The data have been analyzed by the aid of descriptive and inferential statistics (T test, analysis of one way variance test and Pierson coefficient). Although the results are not meaningful statistically they indicate an increase in individualistic values and reduction of collectivistic values from the first generation to the third generation in families. Also, difference in individualistic values in educated people as well as people with different orders of birth is significant. In this research, 94.4% of the cases were brought up with authoritative style and 5.6% were brought up with authoritarian styles there is a significant difference between the amount of tolerance and parental control in different generations was not observed. © 2011 by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. © 2011Published Published by Elsevier
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance. Keywords: parenting styles, inter-generation transition, individualism, collectivism.
1. Introduction Many researchers have found out that in reality the educational styles are not transmitted from one generation to another (Campell & Gilmore, 2007; Covell, Gruesec & King, 1995). Education usually is defined as a socialization method which plays a role in the individual’s development (Hill, Mullis, Readdict & Waters, 2000). The great events of the twentieth century such as crises, wars and the increase in divorce rate have led to some changes in family behavior and structure, directly or indirectly (Elder, 1974, 1994). In the latter years of the twentieth century, as baby death toll dropped, some attention was bestowed upon children’s rights (Hulbert, 2003). Based on research studies in 1920s, researchers described children as vulnerable. Therefore, the value of Warmth increased. In the early 1940s Freud’s idea of the importance of mothers in the early childhood was attended, and in the 1950s Bowlby’s attachment model showed that parents play an important role in their children’s development. 1 2
E-mail address:
[email protected] Student in psychology
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.475
2432
Azam Farah Asma Zahmatkesh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 2431 – 2437 AzamBidjari Farahand Bidjari / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
Pediatricians, as well, increasingly become interested in parenting control. For example, Skinner and Spock advised parents to exert more control over their children. But later in 1960s parents were advised to lower their control and just encourage their children to make correct decisions (Hulbert, 2003). Because Baumrind’s educational models are multidimensional they are used in many educational researches (Brenner & Fox, 1999; Dominguez & Carton, 1997; Dornbusch and et.al., 1987). Because the interest in and the use of warmth and control have increased in education, Baumrind recognized four types of main educational styles: authoritative education, despotic education, indifferent education and ignoring/ostracizing education (Baumrind, 1991). These four types are recognized by different levels of acceptance (nurturance and warmth), communication, reasoning, control (strictness) of the parents. Rankin (2005) describes severity and indifference as the two ends of a spectrum in which indifference is having very low control and severity very high control. Parents’ warmth is their emotions and demonstrating of them to the children. Ostracizing parents is the opposite end of warmth spectrum. Authoritative parenting consists of low control with high acceptance and warmth (Baumrind, 1991). Many researchers have found strong connections between educational styles and cultural variables like individualism and collectivism (Baumrind, 1991). Individualism and collectivism have strong connections with education and its styles (Bamerind, 1991; Jose & et.al., 2000). Markus and Kitayama (1991) describe collectivism as a social model of closed relationship of individuals who consider themselves as dependent members of a collectivistic unite. They describe individualism as individual autonomy and personal independence. Individualism proceeds to emphasize independence and personal achievement, so it goes in the direction of applying an education that focus more on lower control and higher warmth (Elder, 1974; Stearns, 2003). Many researches show the relation between authoritative parenting and individualism (Dornbusch & et.al., 1987; Herz & Gullone, 1999; Kim and Runner, 2002). Many researchers have found strong relation between despotic parenting and collectivism (Hertow & Gallen, 1999). When the society moves in the direction of less collectivism and more individualism, one can see and increase in warmth and a decrease in control in educational styles. Do these changes within the family show that the inter-generational influence is more than the intra-familial influence? Transition and continuance are terms used in studying behavior and educational values and their existence (or lack of them) form one generation to another one. Inter-generational study includes both intragenerational effects in family and inter-generational effects. There are unique familial elements which survive generations, but there are also social elements which influence the transition of some things to the next generation (Hareven, 1978). Similarly, one can see this among groups. There are also some historical elements that can cause inter-generational breaks, such as the increase in the number of the girls who enter university. In the last hundred years, there have been great changes in despotic traditional collectivistic parenting styles. With the increase of nonmanual jobs (industrial) in twentieth century, a change happened in educational values from controlling to autonomic. This reflects the collectivistic increase in individualistic values and it can be observed in the changes that have happened in this era’s educational styles (Biblarz, Bengston & Bukur, 1996). Bengston (1975) studied collectivism and individualism in three generations of families. He realized that individualism has increased noticeably from grandparents (first generation) to grandchildren (third generation). First generation’s ability regarding individualism and collectivism index is at the collectivism pole, while the third generation’s ability is at the individualism pole. Second generation’s ability stands between collectivism-individualism of the first and third generation. Since social values of individualism and collectivism are strongly related to educational styles (Baumrind, 1991) and it seems that educational styles have changed from despotic to authoritative and to indifferent (Campell & Gillmore, 2007; Elder, 1974; Stearns, 2003; Woods & et.al., 1960). It is possible that individualism and collectivism follow the same method; in other words, since educational styles reflect more individualism in time, it seems that people have become more individualistic and less collectivistic. Hypotheses of the research are as follows; 1)Individualistic values have increased from generation one to three and it is meaningfully different from one generation to another. 2) Collectivistic values have decreased from generation one to third and it is meaningfully different from one generation to another. 3) Level of warmth (care) has increased from first generation to third. 4) 2
Azam Farah Bidjari and Asma Zahmatkesh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral 30000–000 (2011) 2431 – 2437 Azam Farah Bidjari / Procedia – Social and Behavioral SciencesSciences 00 (2011)
2433
Level of control (perceived support) has decreased from the first generation to third and in families it is meaningfully different from one generation to another. 5) Individualism in the grandmothers (G1) had a negative association with parents’ control (as reported by their daughters (G2)). 6) Individualism in mothers (G2) had a negative association with parents’ control (as reported by their daughters (G3)). 7) Individualism in grandmothers (G1) has a positive association with parents’ warmth (as reported by their daughters (G2)). 8) Individualism in mothers (G2) has a positive association with parents’ warmth (as reported by their daughters (G3)). 2. Methodology This is a corelational research. The research case study consists of all Kermanian women and girls above the age of 16, since the social effect of family is stronger on girls (E. G. Amato & Booth, 1997; Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Campell and Gilmore, 2007; Caspi & Elder, 1988). Three generation selected for this research, consist of (G1) group which mostly belonged to the era before the revolution, (G2) group that mostly belong to evolution era and (G3) group which belong to the era after revolution. The method of nonrandom and available sampling was used. Sample consists of 40 daughters, 40 mothers and 40 grandmothers, some of them were relatives, and therefore 40 daughters, 32 mothers and 26 grandmothers were studied. Measuring tools a) Demographic questionnaire including demographic information of the participants (age, education, order of birth and maternal status) b) For measuring individualism-collectivism (INDCOL), Triandis and Singelis (1994) questionnaire was used. This 31-item scale is consisted of a 9 degree Lickert scale (1= completely disagree to 9= completely agree). In a research done by Azam Azad and Tavakoli (2007) in Iran the validity of individualistic and collectivistic indexes was studied by calculating Cronbasch’s Alpha, resulting in 0.646 for horizontal individualism, 0.744 for vertical individualism, 0.732 for horizontal collectivism and 0.751 for vertical collectivism. Validity of individualistic and collectivistic indexes in this research was studied by using Cronbasch’s alpha multiple, resulting in 0.72 for individualism and 0.78 for collectivism. c)
Parenting connection tool_mother form: all participants filled out the parent –child connection questionnaire (PBI; Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979) based on their perception of their mothers’ education till they were 16. PBI questionnaire has 25 items and consists of 2 scales: perceived maternal care (12 items) and over perceived nurturance (13 items). The above mentioned scale enjoys a good validity and reliability and has been used in research studies in the past twenty five years numerously (such as Circes, Krockenberg, 2006; Linhout, Mrkus, Hogendick, Bourst F. Mingy, Episen Fon, VanDike and Bow, 2006; Manian, Papadix, Straman and Essex, 2006; Parker et al., 1979). Parenting control and attention scale’s validity in the present research was studied with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which with its use the validity of attention scale is 0.90 and the validity of control scale is 0.89. Descriptive statistical index (abundance, mean, average, mode, standard deviation and variance) has been used for processing data. In addition, referential statistical index (dependent T-Test method, analysis of one way variance (ANOVA) and Pierson correlation)
3. Findings Hypothesis one: it states that individualistic values have increased from generation one to generation 2 and they are meaningfully different from one generation to another. To study this hypothesis, ANOVA was used. Its results are shown in table 1.
3
2434
Azam Farah Asma Zahmatkesh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 2431 – 2437 AzamBidjari Farahand Bidjari / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
Table 1. The results of ANOVA for comparing individualism between 3 generations Statistical index
Total square root
Freedom degree
Average square root
F
Within groups Between groups Sum
16749/91 475/671 17225/58
116 2 118
144/396 237/835
1/647
Significance level 0/197
Based on the results shown in table 1-2, there is meaningful difference between the average individualism in three generations. [F(2, 116)(p>0.05)] Hypothesis two: it states that collectivistic values have decreased from one generation to another and they are meaningfully different from one generation to another. To study this hypothesis ANOVA was used and its results are shown in table 2. Table 2. The results of ANOVA for comparing collectivism between three generations Statistical index
Total square root
Freedom degree
Average square root
F
Within groups Between groups Sum
18988.77 130.31 19119.08
114 2 116
166.568 65.154
0.391
Significance level 0.677
Based on results shown in table 1-5, there is meaningful difference between the members of the three generations. [F(2,114), P>0.05] Hypothesis three: it states that the level of warmth (attention) has increased from generation one to third. To study this hypothesis ANOVA was used and its results can be seen in table 3. Table 3. Comparing perceived warmth in three generations Statistical index Dispersal sources Within groups Between groups Sum
Total square root
dF
Average square root
F
4834.615 178.535 5013.145
114 2 116
42.409 89.265
2.105
Significance level 0.127
Based on the results shown in table 1-8 there is no meaningful difference between perceived warmth in three generations. [F (2,114), p>0.05] Hypothesis four: it states that the control level (perceived nurturance) has decreased from generation one to generation three and that is meaningfully different in families of different generations. To study this hypothesis ANOVA was used and its results are shown in table 4. Table 4. Comparing perceived nurturance in three generations Statistical index Dispersal sources Within groups Between groups Sum
Total square root
dF
Average square root
F
7071.757 291.693 7363.45
2 106 108
66.715 145.848
2.186
4
Significance level 0.117
Azam Farah Bidjari and Asma Zahmatkesh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral 30000–000 (2011) 2431 – 2437 Azam Farah Bidjari / Procedia – Social and Behavioral SciencesSciences 00 (2011)
2435
Based on the results shown in table 4, there is meaningful difference between 3 generations. [F(2,106) p>0.05] To study fifth to eighth hypotheses correlation coefficient was used. Table 5. Correlation between individualism and the level of perceived nurturance and warmth
Mother’s individualism with daughter’s perceived nurturance Mother’s individualism with daughter’s perceived warmth Grandmother’s individualism with daughter’s perceived nurturance Grandmother’s individualism with daughter’s perceived warmth
Significance level
correlation
0/08 0/761 0/064 0/428
-0/284 0/05 -0/331 0/132
As it can be seen in the table there is significant association between mother’s individualism and daughter’s perceived nurturance, between grandmother’s individualism and mother’s perceived nurturance, between mother’s individualism with daughter’s perceived warmth and between grandmother’s individualism and mother’s perceived warmth. (p>0.05) 4. Conclusion Although the findings show that individualistic values have increased in families from generation one to third, but regarding the results this increase is not meaningful. The result of T- test for dependent groups shows that individualistic values have increased meaningfully from generation one to three, but the increase in individualistic values from generation one to two and two to three is not meaningful. The results are in accord with Bengston’s research (1975), which showed that individualism has increased in three generations. He explains the reasons behind these results as follows: the inter-generational influence is higher than intra-familial influence; in other words, although the participants of this research have been groups of three members of families, he realized that these groups change over time. It seems that changes in their age and historical changes, affect this research as time passes. It is quiet natural that human beings find mental independence to move from a traditional society to a modern society, and such independence surely needs an amount of individualism. To sum up, one can conclude that although modernism has led to an increase in people’s individualism, but regarding historical and cultural effects of the society and the long history of urbanity in Iran, such an increase is not significant. The average collectivistic values show that collectivistic values have decreased from generation one to three, but that is not significant. T-test results for dependent groups show that collectivistic values have decreased from generation one to third but that is not significant. In addition, collectivistic values have increased from generation one to two and it is significant. Collectivistic values also have decreased from generation two to three meaningfully. Here one should pay attention to the fact that generation two consists of people who have participated in Islamic Revolution and they are the ones who made it a success. Besides with paying attention to the fact that collectivism and care for others are of the main values of the revolution, level of collectivism has increased from generation one to two. This indicates that inter-generational effects are more influential than intra-familial effects and it seems that as time passes both changes in people’s age and historical changes influence the study. All in all it can be said that collectivistic values which are affected by inter- and intra-generational elements, have increased in the research society because of Islamic Revolution of Iran from generation one to generation two. On the other hand, modernity’s influence in the third generation has led to a decrease in collectivistic values in the research society form generation two to three. Perceived warmth has decreased from generation one to two and has increased from generation 2 to three. But this increase or decrease in the families is not significant. Average amount of perceived nurturance has decreased in families from generation one to three but based on the results it is not significant. The results indicate that there is a negative association between the level of individualism and parenting control, but this association is not significant. Besides there is a positive association between individualism and parenting warmth, 5
2436
Azam Farah Bidjari Asma/ Procedia Zahmatkesh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 2431 – 2437 Azam Farahand Bidjari – Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
but this is not significant either. Many researchers have found strong connections between educational styles and cultural variables such as social life originality and individual life originality (Baumrind, 1991) .Studies have pointed out that in the last 50 years American people have become increasingly individualistic (Bengston, 1975; Elder, 1994; Green, 2008). Since this change has proceeded in the direction of emphasizing independence and personal achievement, therefore, it is proceeding towards applying an education which focus on less control and higher warmth (Elder, 1974; Stearn, 2003; woods & et al., 1960). Generally it can be said that since parents’ educational styles have not change much from first generation one to the third and 94.4 percent of people had authoritative education style and 5.6 percent had despotic educational style, therefore there has not been a meaningful difference from generation one to three. Studying the amount of women’s individualistic and collectivistic values in these generations show that although modernism has caused individualistic values to increase, but this increase has not been meaningful because of the history of urbanity in Iran. On the other hand, Islamic revolution has led to an increase in collectivistic values and morale of the second generation. Modernism has caused a decrease in collectivistic values from generation 2 to three. Dominant educational style in the mentioned society is authoritative and little percentage of people has had a despotic educational style. This can be the result of the influence of religious thoughts in Iran (paying a lot of attention to children and their accepting their parents’ orders) and traditional structure of Kerman city which necessitates the authoritative educational style. References Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well- being across three generations [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 191-206. Azam Azad, M.; Tavakoly, A. (2007). Individualism collectivism and religion. Quartry Journal of Iranian Association Cultural Study and Communication, 125-101 (9)3. Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. M. Lerner, A. C. Peterson, & J. Brooks-Gunn, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol. 2, pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Bengston, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization [Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 40, 358-371. Biblarz, T. J., Bengston, V. L., & Bucur, A. (1996). Social mobility across three generations [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 188- 200. Brenner, V., & Fox, R. A. (1999). An empirically derived classification of parenting practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 343-357. Campbell, J., & Gilmore, L. (2007). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in parenting styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59, 140-150. Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem behavior and relationships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 218-240). New York: Oxford University Press. Covell, K., Grusec, J. E., & King, G. (1995). The intergenerational transmission of maternal discipline and standards for behavior [Electronic version]. Social Development, 4, 32-43. Dominguez, M. M., & Carton, J. S. (1997). The relationship between self-actualization and parenting style. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 1093-1101. Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. In Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life experience, (pp. 271-297). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course [Electronic version]. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4-15. Greene, T. W. (2008). Three ideologies of individualism: Toward assimilating a theory of individualisms and their consequences [Electronic version]. Critical Psychology, 34, 117-137. Hill, E. W., Mullis, R. L., Readdick, C. A., & Walters, C. M. (2000). Intergenerational perceptions of attachment and prosocial behavior. Marriage and Family Review, 30, 59- 72. Hulbert, A. (2003). Raising America: Experts, parents, and a century of advice about children. New York: Random House, Inc. Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., Huntsinger, P. R., & Liaw, F. (2000). Parental values and practices relevant to young children’s social development in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 677-699. 6
Azam Farah Bidjari and Asma Zahmatkesh - Social and Behavioral (2011) 2431 – 2437 Azam Farah Bidjari / Procedia/ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences Sciences 00 (2011)30000–000
2437
Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33, 127-138. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224253. Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10. Rankin, J. L. (2005). Parenting experts: Their advice, the research, and getting it right. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Stearns, P. N. (2003). Anxious parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America. New York: New York University Press. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Gelfand, M.J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical aspects of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275. Woods, P. J., Glavin, K. B., & Kettle, C. M. (1960). A mother-daughter comparison on selected aspects of child rearing in a high socioeconomic group [Electronic version]. Child Development, 31, 121-128.
7
