Differences in Parenting to Typology Family Parenting and Adolescent Outcomes

Using longitudinal data from a sample of 451 families with a child in eighth grade at the time of study, three research questions have been addressed: First, the study explored the ways in which mothers and fathers differ with regard to four parenting styles. Second, the study examined the manner in which individual parenting styles combine to form family parenting styles. Finally, the study investigated the extent to which these various styles are related to delinquency, depression, and school commitment for adolescents. Regardless of reporter, the most common family parenting styles are those in which both parents display the same style of parenting. Having two authoritative parents is associated with the most positive outcomes for adolescents. In the absence of this optimal family parenting style, there is evidence that having one authoritative parent can, in most cases, buffer a child from the deleterious consequences associated with less optimal styles of parenting.
Keywords: parenting; adolescence; delinquency; depression; school commitment
D uring the past three decades, a profusion of studies have investigated the impact of parenting style on child development. Most of this research has examined the effects of four styles of parenting: authoritative,

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Leslie Gordon Simons, University of Georgia, Department of Child and Family Development, 123 Dawson Hall, Athens, GA 30602; e-mail: Igsimons @uga.edu.

authoritarian, indulgent, and uninvolved. For the most part, this research suggests that children achieve the most positive outcomes when they are reared by authoritative parents (see Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Such parents are high on both responsiveness and demandingness. Findings indicate that children of authoritative parents, regardless of age, perform better in school, display fewer conduct problems, and show better emotional adjustment than those raised in nonauthoritative homes (Baumrind, 1991; Dombush, Ritter, Liederman, Roberts & Fraliegh, 1987; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Lambom, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dombusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lambom, & Dornbusch, 1991).
Although past research suggests that children tend to benefit from being reared by an authoritative parent, much of this research has focused on mothers (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Researchers often assess the parenting style of mothers and assume that fathers parent in the same way. Unfortunately, we have little information regarding the extent to which this assumption is correct. Some studies have assessed the parenting styles of both mothers and fathers but then have excluded families from analysis if the parents show different parenting styles (Baumrind, 1973). In other instances, researchers have averaged the parenting scores of mothers and fathers (Steinberg et al., 1989; Steinberg et al., 1991). Given these methodological limitations, we have little knowledge regarding the extent to which husbands and wives show similar styles of parenting. We expect that they often display different approaches to parenting. If this is the case, it raises the issue of the manner in which these contrasting approaches to parenting influence child development. Past research has shown, for example, that authoritative parenting is more beneficial to children than indulgent parenting. However, what are the consequences for the child of being raised by an authoritative mother and an indulgent, authoritarian, or uninvolved father?
The current study is concerned with addressing these issues. First, we compare the parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, and negligent/uninvolved) of mothers and fathers. In the course of making these comparisons, we construct a typology of family parenting styles consisting of all possible combinations of mother and father parenting styles. We examine the frequency with which various family parenting styles tend to occur and the extent to which this prevalence reflects a pattern of similarity (e.g., authoritative-authoritative) versus complementarity (e.g., authoritarian-indulgent). Finally, we investigate the extent to which various family parenting styles are related to positive and negative outcomes for adolescents. We are particularly concerned with identifying instances of either amplification (e.g., two authoritative parents are better than one) or buffering effects (e.g., an authoritative parent can compensate for the effects of an negligent/ uninvolved parent).
We perform these analyses using two waves of data from a sample of several hundred two-parent families living in the Midwest. Both child reports and observer ratings are used to classify parenting styles. Our measures allow us to establish classification cut-points that are less arbitrary than those used in much of the past research. School commitment, conduct problems, and psychological depression are used as child outcomes. The following literature review provides a more detailed explanation of the research questions addressed in our analyses.

Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes
Baumrind (1971) used the dimension of parental control to characterize three parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and indulgent). Maccoby and Martin (1983) expanded Baumrind’s work by adding responsiveness as a second dimension. Using the two dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness, they formed a fourfold typology of parenting styles.
Parents who are high on both dimensions are categorized as authoritative. These parents combine warmth and support with enforcement of rules and use of sanctions when necessary. Authoritarian parents are high on control but low on responsiveness. They emphasize rigid behavior standards, place a premium on obedience, and are emotionally distant and unresponsive. Indulgent parents are high on responsiveness but low on demandingness. These parents take a tolerant, accepting attitude toward the child’s impulses, use little punishment, and avoid asserting authority or imposing controls or restrictions. Finally, parents who are low on both demandingness and responsiveness are labeled uninvolved. These parents maintain a cold and distant relationship with their child. Oftentimes such parents respond to intrusions by their child with hostility and rejection.
As noted earlier, researchers often only classify the parenting styles of mothers. When studies have the categorized parenting styles of both parents, there has been little focus on the ways in which the parenting styles of mothers and fathers coexist and the impact of these various patterns on child development. For example, Baumrind (1973) classified families as authoritative, authoritarian, or indulgent, but both parents had to display the same parenting style or the family was not included in the classification. Although Baumrind found strong concordance on parenting style between parents, one quarter of the sample was omitted from the analyses because the mother and father did not display the same style of parenting. Using Baumrind’s categories, Dombush et al. (1987) employed a somewhat different strategy to identify family parenting styles. If a family scored in the top one third on one parenting style index and not in the top one third on either of the two other indices, they were defined as having a pure parenting style. This accounted for only one half of the families in the study. Families that were not coded as having a pure parenting style were considered inconsistent. Adolescents with inconsistent parents tended to report a lower academic grade point average than those with parents having a pure style, leading the authors to conclude that a pure style is more effective and desirable than an inconsistent style. Unfortunately, their approach did not take into account the possibility that some inconsistent combinations may be more effective than others. It also failed to test for buffering effects. The positive effects of one authoritative parent, for example, may buffer the child from the negative effects associated with one of the other parenting styles.
Steinberg et al. (1989) and Steinberg, Lambom, Dornbusch, and Darling (1994) identified family parenting styles by averaging the scores of mothers and fathers. Unfortunately, there are instances where this strategy leads to the misclassification of families. For example, a family would be classified as authoritative if one parent displays an indulgent style of parenting (high on responsiveness, low on demandingness) while the other parent is authoritarian (low on responsiveness, high on demandingness). The averaging strategy is also limited because it is not able to address important theoretical questions regarding the consequences for children when the mother and father have different styles of parenting. Past research has demonstrated that the outcomes for children vary largely by the style of parenting they receive. Thus, it is important to document whether having an indulgent/authoritarian combination produces the same positive outcomes as having two authoritative parents.
More recent, Fletcher, Steinberg, and Sellers (1999) focused on the four pure styles of parenting as well as some of the interparentally inconsistent combinations. Although this study improved on previous investigations of family parenting styles, it also suffered certain methodological limitations. For example, only families in which both the mother and father scored in either the top or bottom third of the distribution for both the responsiveness scale and the demandingness scale were included. This resulted in well more than one half of the families being excluded from the analyses.
Using the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology, there are 16 possible parenting style combinations. The present study investigates the prevalence of each. We expect that some combinations are much more prevalent than others. For example, research shows that mate selection involves an assortative process, whereby individuals tend to marry someone with characteristics similar to their own. This suggests that a hostile, antisocial individual is apt to marry another person who is hostile and antisocial, with the likely result being two angry, uninvolved parents. Similarly, persons with an indulgent, laissez-faire approach to life may be drawn to each other, with both displaying a tendency toward an indulgent parenting style. Similarity of parenting styles may also be produced by socialization effects (Buss, 1984). Through a process of mutual influence husbands and wives may gradually acquire similar perspectives on parenting. Thus, as a consequence of assortative mating and socialization effects, we expect three combinations to be overrepresented among the various types of family parenting styles: an authoritative mother and father, an indulgent mother and father, and an uninvolved/uninvolved mother and father.
On the other hand, we expect the combination of two authoritarian parents to be rather rare. This prediction is based on our belief that there is usually no room for two authoritarian parents in one family as both will want to be in control of family decision making. Therefore, if one of the parents is authoritarian, we anticipate that the other will be either authoritative, indulgent, or uninvolved. Furthermore, based on sex role socialization, we expect mothers to be overrepresented in styles high in nurturance (indulgent and authoritative) and fathers to be overrepresented in styles characterized by strong control (authoritarian and authoritative). Based on this idea, Baumrind (1991) suggests a possibly common combination that she calls traditional parenting. This refers to a family parenting style in which the mother and father enact traditional gender roles. In such cases, the mother is significantly more responsive than demanding, whereas the father is significantly more demanding than responsive. Findings from Berk (1985), Parke (1996), and Coltrane (2000) provide support for the idea that parents often display such a division of labor. This suggests that there should be an overrepresentation of family parenting styles consisting of an indulgent mother combined with an authoritarian father.
Bulanda (2004) and Sabattini and Leaper (2004) have noted, however, that fathers with a traditional gender ideology show less parental involvement than those with an egalitarian ideology. This would suggest that the consequence of traditional sex role socialization is likely to be an overrepresentation of family parenting styles containing either an authoritative or an indulgent mother with an uninvolved father. The present article investigates these various hypotheses regarding the prevalence of various family parenting styles.
As noted earlier, there is strong evidence that children achieve the most positive developmental outcomes when they are reared by authoritative parents. Such parents are high on both responsiveness and control. More than three decades of research has shown that authoritative parenting is positively related to school commitment, psychological well-being, and social adjustment and negatively related to conduct problems and delinquency (Dornbush et al., 1987; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Lambom et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1989; Steinberg et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992). Although these studies provide important information regarding the link between various parenting styles and adolescent developmental outcomes, they do not address the issue of the consequences for children when parents engage in different styles of parenting. Past research on interparental inconsistency has focused primarily on specific parental behaviors (e.g., inconsistent expectations for the child) rather than inconsistencies in parenting style.
A few studies have investigated the association between family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes, but as we have noted, there are various methodological problems associated with their approach. They either assume that both parents display the same parenting style, delete families in which mothers and fathers show different styles, or average the styles of mothers and fathers. The study by Fletcher et al. (1999) explicitly considered the impact of various combinations of parenting styles on adolescent outcomes. They found that adolescents with one authoritative parent exhibited greater academic competence than did peers with parents who showed similar but nonauthoritative styles. Furthermore, adolescents with one authoritative and one nonauthoritative parent exhibited greater internalized distress than did those from families where the parents displayed similar styles. Unfortunately, however, the authors used a classification system that excluded more than one half of the families. Furthermore, it is only in the case of authoritative parenting that their analyses addressed the issue of whether the benefits of a parenting style vary by gender of parent. Thus, for example, an indulgent mother paired with an uninvolved father was classified as the same family parenting style as an uninvolved mother paired with an indulgent father.
The present article goes beyond previous research by examining variations in adolescent outcomes using all 16 combinations of parenting styles implied by the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology. This allows all families to be included. Three outcomes will be considered: conduct problems, depression, and school commitment. These three outcomes allow us to examine the impact of family parenting styles on externalizing and internalizing problems as well as on a major positive outcome—academic commitment.
Our analysis of the associations between family parenting style and adolescent outcomes is guided by several research questions. First, we are interested in whether adolescents achieve better outcomes when they have two rather than simply one authoritative parent. Second, we are concerned with the extent to which an authoritative parent can compensate for the less competent parenting by his or her mate. We expect that the answer to this question varies by the type of style displayed by the second parent. Although a single authoritative parent may be sufficient when the second parent is indulgent, this may not be the case when the second parent is uninvolved. Furthermore, it may be that the answer to these questions depends on the sex of the parent. Authoritative mothers may compensate for an uninvolved father, for example, whereas an authoritative father may not be able to compensate for an uninvolved mother.
Finally, we are interested in whether some husband-wife combinations involving nonauthoritative parenting styles are as effective as having an authoritative parent. The research on authoritative parenting is often interpreted as indicating that the optimal family environment for children combines support and nurturance with structure and control (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Simons, Simons, & Wallace, 2004). However, perhaps both dimensions of parenting need not be provided by the same person. Responsiveness might be bestowed by one parent and structure and control by the other. If this is the case, an indulgent-authoritarian combination may be as effective as having one authoritative parent.
We extend previous research by using multiple sources to assess parenting. Both child reports and observational ratings of family interaction are used in classifying father, mother, and family parenting styles. Although individual family members have an opportunity to observe one another in myriad contexts, they are often poor observers of their own and one another’s behavior. Trained observers can assess family interaction with a high degree of objectivity, but they have access to a restricted sample of the parents’ broad array of interactions with their children. Thus, both approaches have their strengths and limitations. Given these considerations, we assume that the best strategy is to perform our analyses using both sources of information and to search for commonality of results across reporters.
Sample
Data for the present study were collected as part of the second wave and third wave of the Iowa Youth and Families Project. The Iowa Youth and Families Project is a panel study of 451 European American intact, two-parent families. In addition to the mother and father, each family consisted of a target adolescent and a sibling within 4 years of age of the target child. The sample was recruited through the cohort of all seventh grade students, male and female, from eight counties in North Central Iowa who were enrolled in school during the winter and spring of 1989. The study site was selected because it is fairly representative of the state as a whole with regard to a number of characteristics (e.g., income, size of communities). Seventy-seven percent of the eligible families agreed to participate in the study. Approximately two thirds of the families resided in small towns with populations of less than 6,500, whereas slightly less than one third of the families lived on farms. Mean level of education for the parents was 13 years and average income was $39,116. Mean age was 39 years for fathers and 37 years for mothers and couples had been married an average of 18 years. Fifty-two percent of the targets were female. At the time of data collection for Waves 2 and 3, targets were approximately 13.5 and 14.5 years of age, respectively. Additional information regarding the sample is available in Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons, and Whitbeck (1992) and Conger and Elder (1994). The target children were in eighth grade when the parenting data used in the present study were collected, whereas the outcomes were assessed at both eighth and ninth grades. Thus, our analyses examined the extent to which family parenting styles assessed in eighth grade predict changes in the outcomes in the subsequent year.
Procedures
Essentially, the same procedures and instruments were used in both waves of data collection (see Conger et al., 1992). Each wave of data collection involved two visits to each of the study families. During the first visit, each of the four family members completed a set of questionnaires focusing on family processes, individual family member characteristics, and socioeconomic circumstances. During the second visit, which normally occurred within 2 weeks of the first, the family was videotaped while engaging in several different structured interaction tasks. The visit began by having each individual complete a short questionnaire designed to identify issues of concern or disagreements within the family (e.g., chores, recreation, money, etc.). The family members were then gathered around a table and given a set of cards to read and discuss. They were asked to discuss among themselves on each of the items listed on the cards and to continue talking until the interviewer returned. The family was given 25 minutes to complete the task. The items on the cards concerned family issues such as discipline, chores, and the children’s friends and school performance. The second task, 15 minutes in length, also involved all family members. For this task, the family was asked to discuss and try to resolve the issues and disagreements that they had cited in the questionnaires they had completed early in the visit. The third task involved only the children in the family, and the fourth task included only the parents. The present article uses data from the first task only.
The family’s interaction around these tasks was videotaped. The videotapes were coded by project observers using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1990). These scales focus on the quality of behavioral exchanges between family members. The project observers were staff members who had received several weeks of training on rating family interactions and specialized in coding one of various tasks. Before observing tasks, coders had to independently rate precoded interaction tasks and achieve at least 90% agreement with that standard. For purposes of assessing interobserver reliability, 28% of the tasks at Wave 2 and 25% at Waves 3 and 4 were randomly selected to be independently observed and rated by a second observer. Reliability between observers was determined by calculating a generalizability coefficient. In the case of two independent observers, this coefficient is an intraclass correlation and provides an estimate of true score variance relative to error variance (Suen & Ary, 1989). The magnitude of this coefficient varied by rating scale but on an average ranged between .60 and .70.
Measures
Warmth/Support
The child-report measure consisted of a four-item supportive parenting scale that focuses on the various components of supportive parenting (Simons, Lorenz, & Conger, 1992; Simons, Lorenz, & Wu, 1993). The adolescents were asked to think about times during the preceding month when they had spent time talking to or doing things with their mother. They were then asked to indicate how often during these interactions that their mother had done things like listened carefully to their point of view or showed love and affection. Response format for this instrument consisted of 1 (never), 2 (almost never), 3 (not too often), 4 (about half of the time), 5 (fairly often), 6 (almost always), and 7 (always). Respondents then answered the same set of questions regarding their father. Coefficient alpha was .87 and .83 for the adolescents’ reports about their fathers and mothers, respectively.
An observational measure of supportive parenting was formed using the warmth/support parenting scale from the discussion task of the videotaped family interaction. The warmth/support scale focused on the extent to which the parent shows caring and concern for the child. The 5-point rating scale consisted of 1 (not at all characteristic), 2 (mainly uncharacteristic), 3 (somewhat characteristic), 4 (moderately characteristic), and 5 (mainly characteristic).
Hostility
Adolescents used a four-item scale to report on the extent to which their mother displayed hostility or anger toward the child (e.g., “How often does your mother shout or yell when she is mad at you?”). The 7-point response format for this instrument was the same as that used for the warmth/support scale. Adolescents used the same four items to report on their fathers’ hostility. Coefficient alpha was .75 and .74 for their reports of fathers’ and mothers’ hostility, respectively.
Observational coders rated the hostility of parents toward their children based on family interaction and content of discussion of the task in the videotaped interaction. The coders used a 5-point scale to rate the degree to which the parent displayed hostility, angry, critical, disapproving, and uninvolved behavior toward the child’s behavior, appearance, or state.
Consistent Discipline
Adolescents were asked to rate the consistency of their parents’ discipline using a four-item scale (e.g., “How often does your mother punish you for something at one time and then at other times not punish you for the same thing?” (Magruder, Lorenz, Hoyt, Ge, & Montague, 1992). The response format ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (never), with a midpoint of 3 (about half of the time). Coefficient alpha was .65 for reports about fathers and .68 for reports about mothers.
The observational ratings of inconsistent discipline were based on family interaction and content of discussion in the videotaped task. The coders used a 5-point scale to rate the consistency and persistence with which the parent maintained and adhered to rules of conduct for the child’s behavior and disciplined the child when the child violated these standards.
Monitoring
Adolescents reported on their monitoring using a four-item scale (e.g., “How often does your mother know who you are with when you are away from home?”). The response format ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with a midpoint of 3 (about half of the time).The adolescents reported on their fathers using the same items. Coefficient alpha was .79 for reports about fathers and .82 for reports about mothers.
The observational rating of monitoring was based on the interaction and content of the discussion task. Using a 5-point scale, the coders assessed the parent’s knowledge and information, as well as the extent to which the parent pursued information concerning the child’s life and daily activities.
Parenting Style
The above parenting scales were used to develop measures of responsiveness and demandingness as described by Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983). For adolescent reports, the scores from the warmth and hostility scales were summed to form a composite measure of responsiveness. The hostility scale was reverse-coded prior to summing it with the warmth scale. Possible scores on the composite support measure ranged from a low of 8 to a high of 56. Parents who received scores of 40 or more, based on adolescent reports, were categorized as high on the responsiveness dimension, whereas those with a total score of less than 40 received a categorization of low responsiveness. To score 40 or more, a parent would have to average a score of 5 on each of the eight items. A score of 4 indicates that they engaged in the behavior in question about half of the time. To be considered responsive, it seems reasonable that parents should engage in the behaviors indicating warmth toward the child fairly often, although exhibiting hostile behaviors not too often, the responses that correspond with a score of 5 for each item.
The responsiveness measure was constructed using both warmth and hostility items because highly responsive parents, by definition, show warmth and support while eschewing hostility, whereas parents who are very low on responsiveness not only lack warmth but also are hostile and uninvolved (Baumrind, 1996; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Authoritarian parents, for example, are described as harsh and coercive in their use of disciplinary practices (Zhou, Eisenberg, Wang, & Reiser, 2004), and items focusing on hostility are usually a component of any measure of authoritarian parenting (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). Similarly, extremely uninvolved parents often respond to intrusions by their child with hostility (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Thus, a measure of responsiveness should distinguish between parents who are largely warm and supportive and those that are largely hostile and uninvolved. By combining warmth and hostility scales, we created a responsiveness scale that served this function.
The demandingness dimension was formed by adding the parents’ total scale scores, based on adolescent reports, for monitoring those of consistent discipline. The possible scores for the composite demandingness measure ranged from 8 to 40. Parents who scored 32 or more were categorized in the high demandingness group, whereas those with scores of less than 32 were categorized in the low demandingness group. To score 32 or more, a parent would have to average a score of 4 on each of the eight items. A score of 3 indicates that they monitored or disciplined consistently about half of the time, whereas a score of 4 indicates that they engaged in these behaviors almost always.
The dichotomized responsiveness and demandingness scales were used to classify parents according to Maccoby and Martin’s typology of parenting styles. Parents who were high on both responsiveness and demandingness were classified as authoritative, whereas those low on these two dimensions of parenting were considered uninvolved. Parents who were low on responsiveness but high on demandingness were defined as authoritarian. Finally, parents who were high on responsiveness but low on demandingness were labeled indulgent.
A similar approach was used to classify parents using the observational data. The warmth and hostility (reverse coded) ratings were summed to form a composite responsiveness scale. Scores ranged from 2 to 10. Parents were considered high on responsiveness, if they had a score of 8 or more on the composite scale (i.e., they averaged 4 or more on the warmth and reverse coded hostility scales). Such a score indicated that warmth was moderately characteristic and hostility mainly uncharacteristic of their interactions with their child. The monitoring and consistent discipline ratings were used to construct a composite demandingness scale. Again, scores ranged from 2 to 10 and parents were classified as high on demandingness if they scored 8 or more. Such a score indicated that monitoring and consistent discipline were at least moderately evident in their interactions with their child. These dichotomized scores on responsiveness and demandingness were then used to classify parents as authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, or uninvolved.
Our approach to classification allowed for a more absolute assessment of parenting styles than the relativistic method used in most previous studies. Usually, a scale is used to assess a dimension of parenting (e.g., responsiveness) and parents are classified as either high or low on this parenting dimension based on whether they score above or below the median—that is, parents are classified relative to the scores of the rest of the sample. This approach can result in the misclassification of parenting styles. Many parents would be misclassified as low on responsiveness, for example, if most of the parents in the sample were highly responsive. In contrast, our approach allowed us to distinguish between parents based on whether a particular dimension of parenting was evident at least half the time in the case of child reports or was moderately characteristic in the case of the observer ratings.
Family Parenting Styles
Families were classified according to the various combinations possible using the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology. Their typology consists of four types of parenting (authoritative, uninvolved, authoritarian, and indulgent). Combining the parenting styles of mothers and fathers created a typology of 16 family parenting styles. Families were first classified using the child-report data and then again using the observer ratings.
Delinquency
Two measures were used as indicators of delinquency. The first was a delinquency self-report instrument adapted from the National Youth Survey (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989). Adolescents were asked to indicate how often during the preceding year (0 = never, 4 = 6 or more times) they had engaged in each of 23 delinquent activities. The acts varied from relatively minor offenses, such as skipping school, to more serious offenses, such as attacking someone with a weapon, selling drugs, or stealing something worth more than $25.
The second instrument consisted of a 16-item self-report measure of substance use developed by Elliott et al. (1985) as part of the National Survey of Delinquency and Substance Use. Participants were asked to report how often they had used each substance during the past 6 months; responses ranged from 0 = never to 4 = 3 or more times per week. The instrument covered the full array of intoxicants commonly used by adolescents (e.g., beer, marijuana, amphetamines, and cocaine). The correlation between substance use and the delinquency checklist was approximately .55 at both waves. The two instruments were standardized and summed to form a comprehensive measure of delinquent behavior at both waves.
Depression
This outcome was measured using 12 items from the depression symp-tomology subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) (Derogatis, 1983). Respondents used a 5-point response format (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) to indicate how much they were bothered by various symptoms during the past week. Symptoms of depressed mood included crying easily, blaming themselves for things, feeling lonely, feeling worthless, and feeling hopeless about the future. Physical symptoms of depression included feeling low in energy or feeling everything is an effort. Coefficient alpha was approximately .80 at both waves of data collection.
School Commitment
Adolescents reported on their commitment to school using a 19-item scale (Simons, Johnson, Conger, & Elder, 1998). The items asked about such things as interest in school, relationships with teachers, and completion of homework. Items provided for five response alternatives ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. Coefficient alpha was above .90 at both waves.
Results
Initially all analyses were performed separately by gender of child. The results provided no evidence of gender differences. Therefore, for the sake of parsimony, our results are presented using the full sample. Table 1 shows the frequency of the various parenting styles using both child and observer reports. The highly significant chi-squares indicate that there are statistically significant differences in the frequency with which the parenting styles occur. Using child reports, nearly one half of both mothers and fathers exhibit behaviors consistent with an indulgent style of parenting. The second most common parenting style reported by children is uninvolved followed very closely by an authoritative style. Based on child reports, less than 2% of children have an authoritarian mother or father. Difference in proportion tests indicated that there were no significant differences between children’s reports of mothers and fathers on any of the parenting styles.
In contrast to the child reports, Table 2 shows that when observer ratings were used mothers and fathers are most likely to exhibit behaviors that are consistent with an authoritative style of parenting and least likely to be an indulgent. Difference in proportion tests indicated that mothers were more likely than fathers to parent in an authoritative manner. There were no other significant differences between mothers’ and fathers’ style of parenting when the observer ratings were used.
Table 1 also shows z tests for the significance of the difference in proportion of mothers and fathers categorized into each of the four parenting styles based on reporter. The table reveals that there is low agreement between reporters. Compared to classification derived from child reports, observer ratings result in a higher proportion of both mothers and fathers being classified as either authoritative or authoritarian and a higher proportion of fathers being classified as authoritarian. The difference is particularly pronounced for authoritarian parenting where observer ratings result

Table 1
A Comparison of Child and Observer Reports of Mother’s and Father’s Parenting Styles
Mothers Fathers
Child Observer z Test Child Observer z Test
n % n % Difference z n % n % Difference z
Authoritative 89 21.0 177 41.7 -20.7 -6.68* 98 23.1 145 34.2 -11.1 -3.58*
Authoritarian 7 1.7 82 19.3 -17.6 -8.80* 8 1.9 100 23.6 -21.7 -9.86*
Indulgent 206 48.6 61 14.4 34.2 11.40* 210 49.5 55 13.0 36.5 12.59*
Uninvolved 122 28.8 90 21.2 7.6 2.53* 108 25.5 108 25.5 0.0 0.0
Missing 0 0.0 14 3.3 2 2.0 16 3.8
191.94* 76.58* 193.28* 40.18 *

*p < .05

Distribution of Family Parenting Style by Reporter
Table 2
Child Observer
n % n %
Mother authoritative/father authoritative 69 16.3 102 25.2
Mother authoritative/father authoritarian 1 0.2 43 10.6
Mother authoritative/father indulgent 17 4.0 16 3.8
Mother authoritative/father uninvolved 2 0.5 8 1.9
Mother authoritarian/father authoritative 1 0.2 22 5.4
Mother authoritarian/father authoritarian 0 0.0 43 10.6
Mother authoritarian/father indulgent 2 0.5 1 0.2
Mother authoritarian/father uninvolved 4 0.9 12 2.9
Mother indulgent/father authoritative 24 5.7 10 2.4
Mother indulgent/father authoritarian 3 0.7 2 0.5
Mother indulgent/father indulgent 148 34.9 27 6.6
Mother indulgent/father uninvolved 31 7.3 19 4.7
Mother uninvolved/father authoritative 4 1.0 4 1.0
Mother uninvolved/father authoritarian 4 1.0 8 1.9
Mother uninvolved/father indulgent 43 10.1 9 2.1
Mother uninvolved/father uninvolved 71 16.7 65 15.9
Missing 0 18
Total 424 406
x2 830.06* 478 97*
***p <.001

in one fifth of mothers and nearly one fourth of fathers receiving this classification, whereas the proportion based on child reports is less than 2%. On the other hand, child reports result in nearly half of both mothers and fathers being categorized as indulgent, whereas the proportion based on observer ratings is less than 15%. Children are significantly more likely to rate both mothers and fathers high on behaviors consistent with an indulgent style of parenting than are observers. Finally, mothers are more likely to be classified as uninvolved when child reports are used. This difference is not evident, however, for fathers.
Next, we focused on ways in which individual parenting styles coalesce to form family parenting styles. Combining the 4 possible parenting styles for mothers with the 4 possible parenting styles for fathers yields a typology of 16 family parenting styles. Table 2 shows the distribution of family parenting styles by reporter. The significant chi-squares indicate that, regardless of reporter, there is a difference between the observed and expected frequencies. This suggests that the distribution of family types is not evenly distributed across the different types.
Using child reports, the most common family parenting style involves two indulgent parents. More than one third of families fall into this category. The second most common family parenting styles consists of two uninvolved parents (17%), closely followed by two authoritative parents (16%). One tenth of the families consist of an uninvolved mother paired with an indulgent father. It is interesting to note that there are no families with two authoritarian parents.
Based on the observer ratings, one quarter of the families is constituted by two authoritative parents. The second most common family parenting style is two uninvolved parents (16%). Two family parenting styles tie for third: two authoritarian parents and an authoritative mother paired with an authoritarian father. Each constitutes 10.6% of the families. The least common family parenting styles are an authoritarian mother paired with an indulgent father or an indulgent mother paired with an authoritarian father.
Compared to child reports, observer ratings result in a much higher proportion of families being classified as having either two authoritative or two authoritarian parents. In contrast, child reports were much more likely than observer ratings to result in families being classified as having two indulgent parents. Regardless of reporter, however, the most common family parenting styles are those in which both parents display the same style of parenting (i.e., Dornbush’s, 1987, pure parenting styles). This finding suggests that assortative mating and socialization effects are in operation rather than some sort of complementary process. Although the pure styles are the most common, it is evident that a substantial number of families would be omitted if only those displaying this family parenting style were included. The proportion omitted would be 22% and 42% for child reports and observer ratings, respectively.
In addition to showing that the pure family parenting styles are most prevalent, Table 2 indicates that, across reporters, certain family parenting styles are much more widespread than others. For example, combinations that include an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father or an indulgent mother paired with an uninvolved father are relatively common, whereas an authoritarian mother paired with an authoritative father, an indulgent mother paired with an authoritarian father, and an uninvolved mother paired with an authoritarian father almost never occur. These findings contradict Baumrind’s (1991) suggestion that a traditional parenting style comprised an indulgent mother and an authoritarian father might be quite prevalent.
Using observer ratings, an additional 33% of the sample families is included when the eight most common family parenting styles are used rather than only the four pure types. This brings the total proportion of families included to 91%. The seven most common family parenting styles based on child reports account for 95% of sample families, 27% more than when only the four pure types are used. Thus, it is clear that including family parenting styles other than the four pure types makes it possible to include a far greater proportion of families, regardless of which reporter is used.
The last and the most important research question concerned the extent to which child outcomes vary by family parenting style. This issue was addressed using ANCOVA. Family parenting styles that did not have at least 15 cases were omitted from this analysis. Using child reports, seven family parenting styles met this criterion, and eight family parenting styles met this criterion when observer ratings were used. The ANCOVAs were performed using a two-step process. First, each of the child outcomes (i.e., conduct problems, depression, and school commitment) was regressed on family income and education, gender of child, and prior assessments of the outcome variable. Some studies have reported that both parental socioeconomic status (SES) and child’s gender are related to parenting behavior and child outcomes. Thus, removing the effects of these variables from our three outcome variables ensured that any relationships found between family parenting style and child development were not spurious due to confounds with family SES or child gender. Partialling out the effect of earlier scores on each of the child outcomes provided residual scores that represented change over time.
The residuals from these regressions were then used as dependent variables in one-way analyses of variance. Thus, the one-way ANOVAs examined the extent to which changes in mean levels of the dependent variable varied by type of family parenting style, net effect of family SES and child’s gender. F tests were used to determine whether there was an overall difference in the means across the various parenting styles and least significant differences post hoc t tests were used to test for significant differences between each of the parenting styles. Least significant difference was chosen because it is appropriate in an exploratory framework although still providing some minimal protection against Type I errors (Snedecor & Cochran, 1989).
Using child reports to classify parenting, Table 3 shows that mean level of delinquency, depression, and school commitment varies by family parenting style. Differences in family parenting style explain 5.7%, 11%, and 13.4% of the variance in the three outcomes, respectively. The rank order for the magnitude of the standardized means indicates that, for all three outcomes,
Table 3
Results of Analysis of Covariance and Least Significant Differences
Post Hoc t Tests for the Association Between Family Parenting
Style and Child Outcomes by Child Report
Child Outcome Family Parenting Style n X t Test Results
Delinquency Mother indulgent/
father authoritative (I/Av) 24 -1.76 I/Av > I/I, U/I, U/U
Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 69 -1.43 Av/Av > I/I, U/I, U/U
Mother authoritative/
father indulgent (Av/I) 17 -1.35 Av > U/U
Mother indulgent/
father uninvolved (I/U) 31 0.16
Mother indulgent/
father indulgent (I/I) 148 0.40
Mother uninvolved/
father indulgent (U/I) 43 0.61
Variance explained = 5.7% 71 1.38

Depression Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 69 -2.77 Av/Av > I/Av, I/I, U/I
Mother authoritative/
father indulgent (Av/I) 17 -2.00 Av/Av > U/U
Mother indulgent/
father authoritative (I/Av) 24 -1.91 Av/I > U/I, U/U
Mother indulgent/
father indulgent (I/I) 148 -0.28 I/Av > I/U, U/I, U/U
Mother indulgent/
father uninvolved (I/U) 31 1.12 I/I > U/I, U/U
Mother uninvolved/
father indulgent (U/I) 43 2.19
Mother uninvolved/
father uninvolved (U/U) 71 2.41
Variance explained = 11%

School commitment Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 69 6.45 Av/Av > I/Av, I/I, I/U, U/I, U/U
Mother authoritative/
father indulgent (Av/I) 17 2.67 Av/I > U/I, U/U
Mother indulgent/
father authoritative (I/Av) 24 0.99 I/Av > U/U
Mother indulgent/
father indulgent (I/I) 148 -0.45 I/I > U/U
Mother indulgent/
father uninvolved (I/U) 34 -1.72
Mother uninvolved/
father indulgent (U/I) 43 -2.25
Mother uninvolved/
father uninvolved (U/U) 71 -4.12
Variance explained = 13.4%
**p > .01.

the family parenting styles which are associated with the best results for children are either two authoritative parents or an authoritative parent paired with an indulgent one. The worst child outcomes are associated with combinations of parenting styles that include an uninvolved mother paired with either an indulgent or an uninvolved father.
The post hoc t tests show that having at least one authoritative parent produces significantly lower levels of delinquency and depression and greater school commitment than styles that include some combination of indulgent and uninvolved parenting or two uninvolved parents. Authoritativeness by either parent, a combination of authoritativeness and indulgence, or even two indulgent parents are associated with significantly better outcomes than an uninvolved mother paired with an indulgent or an uninvolved father.
Table 4 shows that there are also significant differences in mean level of delinquency (p < .01), depression (p < .05 ), and school commitment (p < .01) when observer reports are used to assess family parenting style. Family parenting style explains 5.5%, 11%, and 9.5% of the three outcomes, respectively. Examining the rank order of means for the outcomes, an authoritative mother combined with an indulgent father is the best style for preventing delinquency or depression, and two authoritative parents scores second best. By far, the least effective family parenting style is the combination of two uninvolved parents. The table indicates that two authoritative parents are best for promoting school commitment, whereas two indulgent parents score second best. The least effective styles of parenting are an uninvolved mother paired with an uninvolved father or two authoritarian parents. The post hoc t tests show that having two uninvolved parents is associated with higher rates of delinquency than either of the other three pure Table 4 Results of Analysis of Covariance and Least Significant Differences Post Hoc t Tests for the Association Between Family Parenting Style and Child Outcomes by Observer Report Child Outcome Family Parenting Style n X t Test Results Delinquency Mother authoritative/ father indulgent (Av/I) 16 -0.95 Av/I > U/U
Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 107 -0.80 Av/Av > U/U
Mother authoritarian/
father authoritarian (An/An) 45 -0.60 An/An > U/U
Mother indulgent/
father indulgent (I/I) 28 -0.34 I/I > U/U
Mother authoritarian/
father authoritative (An/Av) 23 -0.10
Mother authoritative/
father authoritarian (Av/An) 45 0.22
Mother indulgent/
father uninvolved (I/U) 20 1.40
Mother uninvolved/
father uninvolved (U/U) 67 1.75
Variance explained = 5.5%

Depression Mother authoritative/
father indulgent (Av/I) 16 -2.73 Av/I > U/U
Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 107 -0.55 Av/Av > U/U
Mother authoritarian/
father authoritarian (An/An) 45 -0.24
Mother indulgent/
father uninvolved (I/U) 20 -0.09
Mother authoritative/
father authoritarian (Av/An) 45 0.12
Mother indulgent/
father indulgent (I/I) 28 0.54
Mother authoritarian/
father authoritative (An/Av) 23 0.59
Mother uninvolved/
father uninvolved (U/U) 67 1.43
Variance explained = 11%

School commitment Mother authoritative/
father authoritative (Av/Av) 107 3.39 Av/Av > An/An,
I/U, U/U

Mother indulgent/ 
               father indulgent (I/I)    28  1.14    I/I > An/An, U/U
    Mother authoritative/
               father authoritarian (Av/An)    45  1.11    Av/An > An/An, U/U
  Mother authoritarian/ 
                 father authoritative (An/Av)    23  0.39    
   Mother authoritative/ 
          father indulgent (Av/I)    16  0.27    
Mother indulgent/ <br
               father uninvolved (I/U)</br    20  -2.37   
Mother uninvolved/ 
               father uninvolved (U/U)    67  -3.44   
Mother authoritarian/
               father authoritarian (An/An)    45  -3.56   

Variance explained = 9.5%
**p > .01.

parenting styles or an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father. Furthermore, having two authoritative parents or an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father is associated with lower levels of depression than having two uninvolved parents. Finally, having at least one authoritative parent or two indulgent ones produces greater school commitment than having either two authoritarian or two uninvolved parents.
In sum, regardless of reporter, having two authoritative parents tends to be associated with better adolescent outcomes than other family parenting styles and having at least one authoritative parent is better than other parenting styles that do not include an authoritative parent. For parenting styles that include an authoritative mother paired with a father exhibiting other than an authoritative style, indulgence on the part of fathers is usually associated with better outcomes than either authoritarianism or uninvolvement. The worst outcomes are produced by having two uninvolved parents. When only one of the parents is uninvolved, combinations that include an uninvolved mother produce significantly worse outcomes than those combinations that include an uninvolved father.
Discussion and Conclusions
Although past research is consistent in the finding that children benefit from being reared by an authoritative parent, much of this research has focused only on mothers (Marsiglio et al., 2000). When studies have classified the parental behavior of both parents, there has been little consideration of the ways in which the parenting styles of mothers and fathers coexist and the effect of these various combinations on child development. Given these limitations in past research, the present study was concerned with two issues. First, we examined the frequency with which various family parenting styles tend to occur. Second, we investigated the extent to which differences in family parenting style influence adolescent adjustment.
Both child reports and observational ratings of family interaction were used to classify parenting styles. Each approach has its strengths and limitations. Although children have the opportunity to observe their parents’ behavior in a variety of situations and settings the routinized, taken for granted nature of family interaction compromises a child’s recall of parental actions. On the other hand, trained observers are able to rate family interaction with a high degree of objectivity but have access to a more narrow set of exchanges between parents and their children. Thus, the weakness of one approach tends to be the strength of the other. Given these considerations, our strategy was to perform our analyses using both sources of information and to search for commonality of results across reporters.
The two sources provided very different estimates of the frequency of some parenting styles. This was particularly true for combinations involving two indulgent parents or two authoritarian parents. The former style was greater when child reports were used, whereas the latter was more frequent when observer ratings were used. In part, these differences are probably a function of differences in the information available to the two types of reporters. Unlike the observers, children are aware of the many times when they have circumvented parental rules with impunity or charmed their way out of punishments. In other words, children probably have better information than observers regarding instances of indulgence. Indeed, parents most likely strive during the interaction tasks to present themselves as conscientious or even strict. Also, the task is apt to create anxiety in the participants, leading parents to come off as lacking in warmth. These tendencies would increase the chances of parents being perceived as authoritarian.
In addition, reporter differences in the frequency of family parenting styles may be a function of the fact that children and observers used dissimilar response formats in rating parental behavior. Thus, the cut-points for classifying parents as responsive or controlling required that the behavior be present at least half the time for child reports and that the behavior be moderately characteristic in the case of observer ratings. This disparity in the definition of the cut-points for classification undoubtedly accounts for some of the differences between reporters in family parenting styles. Even with such methodological limitations, however, there were still several findings that were evident across reporters.
Using the Maccoby and Martin (1983) typology, there are 16 possible combinations of mother and father parenting styles. Each of these combinations was considered to be a family parenting style. We expected some family parenting styles to be more prevalent than others. First, as a consequence of assortative mating and mutual influence, we posited that three combinations would be overrepresented among the various types of family parenting styles: an authoritative mother and father, an indulgent mother and father, and an uninvolved/uninvolved mother and father. This expectation was largely supported as two authoritative parents, two uninvolved parents, and two indulgent parents were the most frequent combinations using child reports, and two authoritative parents or two uninvolved parents were the most frequent combinations using observer reports. Contrary to prediction, however, the combination of two indulgent parents was relatively infrequent when observer ratings were used to classify parenting styles. Earlier, we provided a possible reason for this finding.
Although we assumed that in general assortative mating and mutual influence would cause couples to manifest similar parenting styles, authoritarian parenting was seen as an exception to this tendency. We expected the combination of two authoritarian parents to be underrepresented among family parenting styles. This prediction was based on the assumption that it would be difficult for two authoritarian parents to coexist in a family because both would want to be in control of family decision making. Therefore, if one parent is authoritarian, we anticipated that the other would be either authoritative, indulgent, or uninvolved. The results supported our predictions. No families were classified as having the combination of two authoritarian parents when child reports were used, and less than 11% showed this combination when observer ratings to classify parents. Regardless of reporter, the majority of authoritarian parents were married to someone who displayed a nonauthoritarian (authoritative, indulgent, and uninvolved) approach to parenting.
Finally, Baumrind (1991) has suggested that it may be common in many families for the mother to be more nurturing than controlling, whereas the father is more controlling than nurturing. She refers to husbands and wives in such families as traditional parents as they are enacting traditional gender roles. Baumrind’s arguments suggest that there should be an overrepresentation of family parenting styles consisting of an indulgent mother combined with an authoritarian father. We found no support for this idea. Regardless of reporter, virtually no families showed this combination of parenting styles.
Having examined the prevalence of the various family parenting styles, the second portion of our analysis was concerned with the effect of different family parenting styles on adolescent adjustment. We considered three outcomes: externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and school commitment. First, we are interested in whether adolescents achieve better outcomes when they have two rather than simply one authoritative parent. In general, this was the case. This family parenting style was associated with the lowest levels of depression and the highest levels of school commitment, regardless of reporter. This pattern of results for adolescents with two authoritative parents supports the idea that the positive effects of authoritative parenting are amplified when both parents engage in this style of parenting. Contrary to these findings, however, the lowest levels of delinquency were associated with an authoritative mother paired with an indulgent father when child reports were used and with an authoritative father paired with an indulgent mother when observer ratings were used. This finding is puzzling as it suggests that there may be something about the combination of an authoritative and indulgent parent that is effective in deterring delinquency. To the extent that delinquency is an expression of rebellion toward parental attempts at controlling adolescent behavior, it may be the case that the presence of a highly warm and loving parent removes the impetus for engaging in such externalizing behaviors.
Second, we were concerned with the extent to which an authoritative parent can compensate for the less competent parenting of a mate. We expected that the answer to this question varies by the type of style displayed by the second parent. Although a single authoritative parent may be sufficient when the second parent is an indulgent, we doubted that this would be the case when the second parent is an uninvolved. Furthermore, we assumed that the answers to these questions depend on the sex of the parent. Although an authoritative mother may compensate for an uninvolved father, for example, an authoritative father may not be able to compensate for an uninvolved mother. The findings were largely as expected, and a similar pattern was found across child reports and observer ratings. The fact that we found this consistency or reliability of results when using multiple reporters strengthens the validity of the findings.
Our results indicated that having at least one authoritative parent fosters better outcomes than family parenting styles that do not include an authoritative parent. For family parenting styles that included an authoritative mother paired with a father exhibiting other than an authoritative style, indulgence on the part of fathers was usually associated with better outcomes than either authoritarianism or uninvolvement. When only one of the parents was uninvolved, combinations that included an uninvolved mother were associated with significantly worse outcomes than those styles that included an uninvolved father. These results suggest a compensation effect where the benefits of an authoritative parenting style buffer the deleterious effects of a less effective style of parenting except when paired with an uninvolved mother. In that case, the benefits of having an authoritative father do not outweigh the negative consequences associated with an uninvolved mother. The worst outcomes, however, were produced by having two uninvolved parents.
Finally, we are interested in whether some husband-wife combinations involving nonauthoritative parenting styles are as effective as having an authoritative parent. The research on authoritative parenting is often interpreted as indicating that the optimal family environment for children combines support and nurturance with structure and control (Baumrind, 1991; Simons et al., 2004). However, perhaps both dimensions of parenting do not need to be provided by the same person. Responsiveness might be bestowed by one parent and structure and control by the other. If this is the case, an indulgent-authoritarian combination may be as effective as having one authoritative parent. Unfortunately, only five families were classified as having this combination using child reports and three famihes using observer ratings. Thus, the prevalence of these families was too low to include them in the ANCOVA. Although we were unable to evaluate the efficacy of this parenting style compared to those involving an authoritative parent, we can conclude that it is very rare and hence not a common substitute for the presence of an authoritative parent.
Although the present study overcame some of the limitations of past research, it also suffered from certain other limitations. First, given the sample size, some of the cells in our analyses of covariance were rather small. There is a need to replicate this research with a larger sample. Second, the sample was very homogeneous. All of the families in the sample are White and most are working class. Future research needs to examine the extent to which the distribution of family parenting styles and their association with adolescent outcomes varies by race and type of neighborhood.
Steinberg points out that it would be difficult to find any group within which authoritativeness has deleterious consequences for the adolescent, or any group in which neglectful or uninvolved parenting is desirable. Indeed, Bradford et al. (2003) using a multinational sample report complete invariance across cultures in the linkages between parenting and adolescent functioning. It may be, however, that authoritarian parenting is more common and has more beneficial effects for some ethnic groups or those in particularly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Consistent with this idea, Dornbush et al. (1987) and Steinberg et al. (1992) have reported that although authoritarian parenting is associated with low school achievement for U.S. children, such parenting practices are related to high levels of achievement for Chinese students. Chao (1994) notes that Chinese children perceive high parental control as an indication of parental involvement and concern. Similarly, Brody, Stoneman, Smith, and Gibson (1999) found that no-nonsense parenting (warmth and support paired with very high levels of control) is associated with positive outcomes for African American youth. Smetana, Crean, and Daddis (2002) also find that greater adolescent-rated parental control was associated with lower levels of adolescent problem behavior for African Americans.
A third limitation of this study is that it only examined the consequences of various parenting styles for adolescents. It is not clear whether the same findings would be obtained for younger children. It is possible that the parents in the present study were more indulgent because this is a more age-appropriate way of parenting adolescents than young children. These same parents may have been more authoritarian when their children were younger but made a shift toward permissiveness as more freedom was demanded by their adolescents. There is a need for future studies that focus on family parenting styles and child outcomes in samples with younger children and for longitudinal studies that document the ways in which parenting within a family changes over time.
Although this study provides some insight with regard to interparental inconsistency, we were not able to address intraparental inconsistency. Admittedly, parents may engage in different parenting styles depending on the issue at hand. For example, a father may be particularly strict and authoritarian with his daughter when it comes to dating or her curfew but authoritative or even indulgent when it comes to issues such as spending money or doing chores. The potential for such inconsistencies can have important implications regarding measures used to assess parenting and the types of comparisons that can be made across methods.
In summary, our findings reinforce reports from many previous studies indicating that authoritative parenting is the optimal manner in which to parent adolescents. A home consisting of two authoritative parents provides the most beneficial setting with regard to developmental outcomes. Having two loving, consistent parents is associated with the highest level of school commitment and the lowest levels of depression and delinquency. The poorest child outcomes were associated with uninvolved parenting, particularly on the part of mothers. There were mixed results for children of authoritarian or indulgent parents. However, the negative results associated with authoritarian, indulgent, or uninvolved parenting appear to be buffered by the positive effects of authoritative parenting, especially when the authoritative parent was the mother. This is an important finding because past research has often overlooked the one quarter to one third of families that exhibit interparentally inconsistent styles of parenting. Also, this information is useful to practitioners, researchers, and parents who want to know if parenting practices continue to influence developmental outcomes after childhood. The results presented here add to the existing research evidence (e.g., Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Conger & Conger, 2002; Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000; Simons, Chao, Conger, & Elder, 2001) that parenting still contributes in a meaningful way to developmental outcomes well into adolescence.

Return to Linking Mother Father Differences in Parenting Styles, Critique Assignment.

References
Amato, P. R., & Fowler, E (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703-716.
Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 289-308.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs,4(1, Pt. 2).
Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence(pp.746-758). New York: Garland.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.
Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum.
Bradford, K., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., Maughan, S. L., Erickson, L. D., Ward, D., et al. (2003). A multi-national study of interparental conflict, parenting, and adolescent functioning. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 107-137.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Smith, T., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Sibling relationships in rural African American families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 61, 1046-1057.
Bulanda, R. E. (2004). Paternal involvement with children: The influence of gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 40-45.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361-377.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development. 65, 1111-1119.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208-1233.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361-373.
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.
Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and influences on adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual II (2nd ed.). Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Dornbush, S., Ritter, P., Liederman, P, Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York: Springer.
Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a function of perceived interparental inconsistency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 599-610.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574-587.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Magruder, B., Lorenz, E, Hoyt, D., Ge, X. J., & Montague, R. (1992). Dimensions of parenting’. A technical report.Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research.
Marsiglio, W, Amato, P, Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1173-1193.
Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., et al. (1990). The Iowa family interaction coding manual. Ames, IA: Iowa Youth and Families Project.
Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, O. B., Olsen, S. E, & Hart C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819-830.
Sabattini, L., & Leaper, C. (2004). The relation between mother’s and father’s parenting styles and their division of labor in the home: Young adults’ retrospective reports. Sex Roles, 50, 217-225.
Simons, R. L., Chao, W., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (2001). Quality of parenting as a mediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices and delinquency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 63-79.
Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). A test of latent trait versus life-course perspectives on the stability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology 36(2), 217-244.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, E O., & Conger, R. D. (1992). Support from spouse as mediator and moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development, 63, 1282-1301.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., & Wu, C. I. (1993). Social network and marital support as mediators of the impact of stress and depression on parental behavior. Developmental Psychology, 28, 368-381.
Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., & Wallace, L. E. (2004). Families, delinquency, and crime: Linking society’s most basic institution to antisocial behavior. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Smetana, J. G, Crean, H. E, & Daddis, C. (2002). Family processes and problem behaviors in middle-class African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 275-304.
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989) Statistical methods. (Sth ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success in adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent commitment: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across various ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, ¥., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese children’s effortful control and dispositional anger/frustration: Relations to parenting styles and children’s social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 352-366.