WHAT CAN EURO-AMERICAN PARENTS LEARN FROM ASIAN PARENTS?

THOMAS W. TAYLOR

DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY

Euro-American parents are struggling with the goals of socialization and academic achievement of their children. The parents of the Baby Boomer generation had no confusion relating to parenting. They believed in children “being seen and not heard” as well as strict obedience to the parents, teachers, or whatever adult the child may encounter. Children were to respect their elders. Children were to control their emotions even in the face of physical punishment. Fathers would tell their children to stop crying or they would give them something to cry about, or they would have to stop crying or the spanking they were receiving would continue.

Times have changed the approach American parents use to rear their children. Diana Baumrind identified three styles of parental behavior:

Authoritarian parents employ firm control in a power oriented way without any concerns for the child’s individuality. They emphasize control without caring, nurturing, or support. Authoritarian parents are known to produce unhappy, withdrawn, inhibited, and distrustful children.

Permissive parents have very few limits for their children. They are very accepting of their children’s behavior even when it is impulsive. They grant a great deal of freedom while maintaining their physical safety. Permissive parents appear cool and uninvolved. They believe in letting the children make their own decisions. At times permissive parents may allow their children to behave in ways that anger them. This can lead to anger building up and it is unleashed on the child. They lash out and inflict emotional harm to the child. Children of permissive parents demonstrate insecurity, lack of self control, and immaturity.

Authoritative parents emphasize firm control but show much concern for the child’s independence and individuality. They set clear standards for the child but they are rational, flexible, and attentive to the feelings and needs of the child. The children of authoritative parents are more self reliant and self confident. They explore the world with great anticipation and with feelings of competence.

Parents are told that authoritarian approaches to discipline do not produce good academic achievement in their children.¹ They are told not to spank their children because it will damage their self-esteem and produce aggressive children. The authoritative parenting style has been championed as the optimal parenting style. Authoritative parenting predicts more social competence and academic success in Euro-American children.²

Euro-American parents are concerned about their children having academic success and being socially competent. There is much concern today about the amount of aggressive behavior in American children as well as in the American culture. Since the Columbine High School shootings parents are struggling to know what to do in the face of increasing aggressive behavior. American school teachers report spending a great deal of time trying to socialize children and this takes away from the academic time American students need. Euro-American parents are confronted with task of maintaining control of their children while not damaging their self-esteem or invoking authoritarian discipline.

Aggression in the American school system has been studied extensively and the results reveal problems exist in American schools and families in dealing with bullying. Dan Olweus, considered the pioneer in bullying research, defined bullying as “A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is being exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students.”³

The prevalence of victimization in elementary schools (grades1-5) varies from a low of 11.3% in a sample of 5,813 students in Finland to a high of 49.8% in a nationwide sample (n=7,290) of students in Ireland.⁴ In the United States, the prevalence estimate of victimization in elementary school students is 19%.⁵ The highest levels of victimization occurred in elementary school with a steady decline in prevalence rates through secondary school.⁶ (Pellegrini, 2002). School bullying problems negatively affect the lives of victims and bullies. Research found significant relationships between bullying behavior and the physical, psychological, and social; well being of children.⁷

The parenting styles that parents choose will determine how children will be socialized. Students identified as bullies were 1.65 times more likely to have come from homes with an authoritarian style of child rearing; compared to a participatory style.⁸ Bullies were also 1.71 times more likely than non bullies to have parents who used punitive forms of discipline more often. Children from harsh home environments engage in more bullying behaviors than children from nurturing home environments.⁹ Maternal hostility represents a significant predictor of later peer victimization for the child.¹⁰

The American school system has attempted to remedy the problems of student aggression and bullying by incorporating programs to address the problems. The programs that have been utilized and evaluated show no definitive action that can be counted as effective. There are problems in determining what programs actually reduce bullying.¹¹

The focus of the research has been in the elementary, middle school and high school years. However, the developmental research shows that the spontaneous onset of physical aggression in school-aged children is highly unusual.¹² Studies of physical aggression during infancy reveal that by 17 months of age, the majority of children are physically aggressive toward siblings, peers, and adults.¹³ Since most children seem to learn to inhibit physical aggression during the preschool years, this period of life may be the most appropriate for preventive interventions.¹⁴

Euro- American parents are in need of parenting practices to help them rear their children with less aggressive behaviors, but they are confused about when they are to be authoritarian and authoritative with their children. The practice issue of spanking continues even after years of being told how “bad” it is for children. Parents typically use the discipline methods used by their own parents. If their parents spanked them, then they now spank their children, believing that they “turned out okay” and that their children need it also. What can occur in Euro- American parents is a mixture of styles, with one authoritarian parent and one authoritative parent. The child is then disciplined with two different approaches and this can confuse the child.

With the prevalence of children being in day care while both parents are working, another variable has been introduced in the development of children. Stanley Greenspan suggests that young children increased aggressive behavior in relation to increased time spent in day care.¹⁵ In addition he believes that 85-90% of current day care available is not considered to be of high quality and parents need to explore getting the best care they can for their children.

Aggressive behavior may be a universal characteristic of the human species.¹⁶ These Euro-American parents are attempting to teach their child how to behave and to prepare them for elementary school. They struggle with being either too authoritarian or too permissive. They need help in rearing compliant children who can do well academically. The socialization of their children is extremely important to them. What can they learn from Asian-American parents?

In the collectivistic Chinese culture, aggressive behavior is strictly prohibited, and there are many sociopolitical constraints imposed on this prohibition.¹⁷ The interests of the individual must be subordinated to those of the collective. Almost all types of undercontrolled behaviors, including aggression and disruption, are viewed as highly problematic and “abnormal.”¹⁸ Children are required to learn how to control and suppress their impulsivity, frustration, anger and defiance from the early years.¹⁹

In Asian parenting there is a high level of parental control, which is characteristic of the authoritarian parenting style, but it occurs in a loving context in the Asian family.²⁰ The meaning and form of parental control is different in Asian families compared to Euro-American families. The context and manner in which parental will is exercised is very important.²¹ When control is exerted in a loving family context it may not result in the same negative outcomes as restrictive, domineering control. This approach to child rearing appears to be successful for Asian parents academic success and behavior control. Ho has argued that the strong emphasis on academic achievement and behavioral conformity may lead to inhibition of psychosocial development in children.²² Asian mothers may see the promotion of socioemotional development in children, and the use of related child rearing practices as contrary to goals, which emphasize achievement of filial behavior and academic performance.²³

Euro-American parents need to have control over their children and have them be compliant. They are attempting to be authoritarian with mixtures of permissiveness and authoritativeness thrown in for good measure. The American culture does not allow the abuse of children and there are laws to prohibiting it. Asian cultures have been able to emphasize the need for children to comply with the parents for the good of the family and society. They have conveyed to their children the importance of the child’s behavior to the whole community as well as to the family. Misbehavior and aggression in children are taken very seriously and dealt with by use of physical punishment and shame. Euro-American parents are defensive about their children and any problems they may have. They excuse their children’s behavior as not important. The child is just being a child and they must have their own personality. There is a need for the behavior of 2-4 year olds to be considered serious and in need of correction by all involved with the child. Discipline must be invoked with consequences for inappropriate behavior. The early years are critical for the early intervention of aggression and waiting until the middle school and high school years to intervene is just too late.

We may need to find better ways of punishing bad behavior and teaching good behavior. Euro-American parents are in need of a new strategy to help them with the discipline of their children. One way to get new ideas is to look at different cultures and study their ways of rearing children. The Western culture does not have a monopoly on the answers to the problems of child rearing.

Notes

1. S. Dornbusch, P. Ritter, P.Leiderman, D. Roberts, M. Fraleigh, “The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance,” Child Development 58 (1987): 1244-1257.

2. N. Rao, J.P., McHale, & E. Pearson, “Links between Socialization Goals and Child-Rearing Practices in Chinese and Indian Mothers. Infant and Child Development 12 (2003): 475-492.

3. D. Olweus, “Annotation: Bullying at School: Basic Facts and Effects of a School-based Intervention Program,” Journal of Child Psychology 35 (1994): 1171-1190.

4. M. O’Moore, C. Kirkham, “Self-esteem and its Relationship to Bullying Behavior,” Aggressive Behavior 27 (2001): 269-283.

5. A.D., Pelligrini, M., Bartini, F. Brooks, “School Bullies, Victims, and Aggressive Victims: Factors Relating to Group Affiliations and Victimization in Early Adolescence,” Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2001): 216-224.

6. A.D., Pelligrini, J.D. Long, “A Longitudinal Study of Bullying, Dominance, and Victimization, during the Transition from Primary School through Secondary School,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 20 (2002): 259-280.

7. J.A., Dake, J.H., Price, S.K. Telljohann, “The Nature and Extent of Bullying at School,” Journal of School Health 73 no. 5 (2003):173-181.

8. A.C., Baldry, F.P. Farrington, “Bullies and Delinquents: Personal Characteristics and Parental Styles,” Journal of Community Applied Sociology 10 (2000): 17-31.

9. R.D. Duncan, “Maltreatment by Parents and Peers: the Relationship between Child Abuse, Bully Victimization, and Psychological Distress,” Child Maltreatment 4 (1999): 45-55. D. Schwartz, K.A. Dodge, Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., “Friendship as a Moderating Factor in the Pathway between Early Harsh Environment and Later Victimization in the Peer Group,” Developmental Psychology 36 (2000): 646-662. A., Shields, D. Chicchetti, “Parental Maltreatment and Emotion Dysregulation as Risk Factors for Bullying and Victimization in Middle Childhood.,” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30 (2001): 349-363.

10. Schwartz, & et. al. “Friendship as a Moderating Factor in the Pathway between Early Harsh Environment and Later Victimization in the Peer Group,” 646-662.

11. Dake, Price, Telljohann, “The Nature and Extent of Bullying at School,” 5:173-181.

12. L.M., Broidy, D.S. Nagin, R.E., Tremblay, et al. “Developmental Trajectories of Childhood Disruptive Behaviors and Adolescent Delinquency; a Six-Site, Cross-national Study,” Developmental Psychology 39 (2003): 222-245. B.Brame, , D.S.Nagin, , R.E. Tremblay,” Developmental Trajectories of Physical Aggression from School Entry to Late Adolescence,” Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 42 (2001): 503-512. D. Nagin, R.E. Tremblay, “Trajectories of Boy’s Physical Aggression, Opposition, and Hyperactivity on the Path to Physically Violent and Nonviolent Juvenile Delinquency,” Child Development 70 (1999):1181-1196.

13. J Dunn, P. Munn, “Becoming a Family Member: Family Conflict and the Development of Social Understanding in the Second Year,” Child Development 56 (1985): 480-492. D. F Hay, J. Castle, L. Davies, “Toddlers Use of Force against Familiar Peers: a Precursor of Serious Aggression?” Child Development 71 (2000):457-467. K. Keenan, D.S. Shaw, The Development of Aggression in Toddlers: a Study of Low-Income Families,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 22 (1994): 53-77. R.E Tremblay, D.S Nagin,. J.R. Seguin, et al. “Physical Aggression during Early Childhood: Trajectories and Predictors,” Pediatrics 114 (2004): 43-50.

14. Tremblay, et al. “Physical Aggression during Early Childhood: Trajectories and Predictors,”43-50.

15. S. Greenspan, “Childcare Research: A Clinical Perspective,” Child Development, 74, no. 4, (2003): 1064-1068.

16. J.D. Coie, & K.A Dodge, “Aggression and antisocial behavior,” ed. N. Eisenberg, Handbook ofchild Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, Vol. 3 (New York: Wiley. 1998). pp. 779-862.

17. W. Keesen, Childhood in China. (New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1975).

18. X. Chen, “Growing up in a Collectivistic Culture: Socialization and Socioemotional Development in Chinese Children,” eds., Ina A.L. Comunian & U.P. Gelielen International Perspectives on Human Development, (Lengerich, Italy: Pabst Science Publishers. 2002). 331-353.

19. Ibid

20. N. Rao, , J.P. McHale,., & E. Pearson, “Links Between Socialization Goals and Child-Rearing Practices in Chinese and Indian Mothers,” Infant and Child Development 12 (2003): 475-492.

21. R.K. Chao, “Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting through the Cultural Notion of Training, Child Development 65 (1994): 1111-1119. R.K. Chao, “Chinese and European American Mothers’ Belief about the Role of Parenting in Children’s School Success,” Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 27, no. 4 (1996): 403-423.

22. DYF. Ho, “Filial piety and its psychological consequences,” ed. M.H. Bond, The Handbook of Chinese Psychology, (Oxford University Press: Hong Kong,1996), 143-154.

23. Ibid