Child Development Research on Parenting Styles

EJS DUPPER – Student no 746380 1
PSYCHOLOGY HONNOUS
PYC 4805
CHILD DEVELOPEMENT
ASSIGNMENT 2
UNIQUE NUMBER: 576245
ELSA DUPPER
STUDENT NUMBER:
CLOSING DATE: 17 July 2015

Contents
1. PART A OF ASSIGNMENT 02:....................................................................................................4
1.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................4
1.1.1 PARTICIPANTS:.........................................................................................................4
2. DATA COLLECTION:..................................................................................................................5
2.1 The following guideline was followed by completing the questionnaires ......................5
2.2 The role of ethics in conducting the questionnaires .......................................................6
2.3 A Brief description of the parent participants.................................................................6
3. SECTION A (Biographical Questionnaire).................................................................................7
4. SECTION B (Parenting Questionnaire) .....................................................................................8
5. QUESTION 1 .............................................................................................................................8
5.1 COMPARRISON OF THE CHILD-REARING STYLES OF THE PARENTS INVOLED IN THE
RESEACH:......................................................................................................................................8
5.2 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THESE CHILD-‘EA‘ING “TYLE“ ON CHILD‘EN “ DEG‘EE OF
PROSCIAL BEHAVIOR, TABLES 1 AND 2 REFER:..........................................................................10
6. ASSIGMENT 02; QUESTIONNAIRES: .......................................................................................12
7. PART B OF ASSIGNMENT 02...................................................................................................16
7.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................16
7.2 CULTURAL FACTORS.......................................................................................................18
7.2.1 Laboratory Studies.................................................................................................19
7.2.2 Observational Research .........................................................................................19
7.2.3 Moral Reasoning, Values, and Beliefs about Social Responsibility........................20
7.2.4 Cognitive and social influences in a sociocultural context ....................................20
7.2.5 Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior in cultures ........................................21
7.2.6 Conclusion..............................................................................................................21
8. SOCIALIZATION OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE FAMILY ..........................................22
8.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................22
8.2 THE FAMILY AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM .................................................................................22
8.3 DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF FAMILIES AND FAMILY MEMBERS.................................23
8.4 PARENTAL WARMTH AND QUALITY OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP ................23
8.5 SOCIALIZING WITHIN THE FAMILY, CHILD-REARING STYLES..........................................24
8.6 MODELLING AND REINFORCEMENT ..............................................................................25
8.6.1 Laboratory Studies.................................................................................................25

8.6.2 Modeling by Real-life Socializers ...........................................................................25
8.6.3 Emotional Socialization and Prosocial Tendencies................................................25
8.7 Conclusion......................................................................................................................26
9. THE CHILD S INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................26
9.1 INTRODUTION................................................................................................................26
9.2 INTELLIGENCE AND COGNITIVE CAPACITIES..................................................................27
9.3 PERSPECTIVE TALKING ...................................................................................................27
9.4 PERSONALITY CORRELATES............................................................................................27
9.5 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................30
10. REFERENCES:......................................................................................................................31

1. PART A OF ASSIGNMENT 02:
1.1INTRODUCTION
In part A of Assignment 02 in Childhood development, focus will be on completing the
questionnaires on child-rearing styles with two recruited participants. The first
participant will be recruited from the white Afrikaner cultural group, and the second out
of the coloured cultural group. A report will then be compiled on the research data
regarding child- ea i g st les a d the hild e s p osocial behavior.
1.1.1 PARTICIPANTS:
The study was done in South Africa in the Gauteng region in June 2015.
In Tutorial Letter 101 (2015, p. 22) the purpose of this research required two
participants who comply with the following guidelines:
 The first person; a mother with a child between the ages 2-6 years;
 She must be Afrikaans and
 From the white culture group;
 The second person must be a mother with a child between the ages 2-6 years;
 She must be from another ethnic group than White;
 Ethic group refers to the broader cultural groups in South Africa namely, black,
white, Indian or coloured.
Two mothers were recruited both with a child in early childhood (2 to 6 years).
 RESEARSH PARTICIPANT 1:
- Is a Mother with a child of three years old;
- Recruited from the white ethnic group, and is Afrikaans speaking.
 RESEARCH PARTICIPANT 2:
- Is a Mother with a child of four years old;
- Recruited from the coloured ethnic group, and is English speaking

2. DATA COLLECTION:
The research data was gathered in three sections by means of the following:
Section A: Biographical Questionnaire
Section B: Parenting Questionnaire
Section C: Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire
2.1The following guideline was followed by completing the questionnaires
1. The two parents were selected for the information that was required from
them;
2. Rapport was built to build a trust relationship;
3. Each participant was informed about the purpose of the questionnaire and what
data will be gathered from them. Understanding was gained through open
conversation;
4. The student introduce herself as a honors student in Psychology and explained
that the information is needed to complete an assignment on child-rearing styles
and prosocial behavior of children in early childhood;
5. An explanation was given on the completion of the three questionnaires;
6. It was mentioned that completion of the questionnaires should not take longer
than approximately one hour;
7. That participating in the research, will be a contribution to a valuable research
project;
8. An appointment was made to discuss the questionnaires and the administration
thereof and
9. The student was non-judgmental and non-critical.

2.2The role of ethics in conducting the questionnaires
According to Herlihy and Corey (cited in Corey, 2013) professional ethics provides a
basis for accountability, and through their enforcement, clients are protected from
unethical practice. For the purpose of this assignment the two parents were
informed that their participation in the study is entirely voluntary, and that at all
times they would have the choice to participate, continue or withdraw without any
negative consequence what so ever. The parents were also made aware of the fact
that confidentiality of the information was to be respected and that the information
obtained will only be used for research purposes by lecturers in the Department of
Psychology, Unisa. She will also remain anonymous.
2.3 A Brief description of the parent participants
None of the participants are related to the student doing this research project.
PARTICIPANT 1:
Mrs. 1, 33 years old, is married with one child. Her highest qualification is an Honours
degree and she is currently enrolled for her aste s degree. Mrs. holds the position of
property development executive. Mrs. 1 lives in a suburb in a city, her and her child
lives in a house with open spaces around it. The people taking care of her child when
she a t a e, her spouse, her father and/or mother, the domestic worker and the day
care center or nursery school. Mrs.1 has one child of the age of three (3) years and it is
a girl. The child involve in the research project is only the child and belongs to the white
ethnic group and speaks Afrikaans as a first language. Mrs. 1 spends an average of
approximately 55 hours per week with her child.

PARTICIPANT 2:
Mrs. 2, 29 years old and has never been married. Her highest qualification is a diploma
(2 years study after Grade 12). Mrs. 2 holds the position of a beautician/nail
technician. Mrs.2 lives in a suburb in a city, her and her child lives in an apartment
(flat) in a building with various floors. The people taking care of her child when she
a t a e he father and mother. Mrs. 2 have two children and the age of the child
involve in the research project is four (4) year old, and a boy. The boy is this youngest
child and belong to the Coloured ethnic group. The family took English as their first
language in their household.
3. SECTION A (Biographical Questionnaire)
TABLE 1: BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF PARENTS
Research
Participant
Age Gender Ethnic
Group
Marital
Status
Working
or Stay-
At-Home
Parent
Average
Time
Spent
With
Child Per
Week
Number
of
Children
1 33 Female White Married Working 55 hours 1
2 29 Female Colored
Never
Married
Working
112
hours
2
TABLE 2: BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF CHILDREN
Child of Parent Age Gender Ordinal Position in
Family
1 3 Female Only Child
2 4 Female Youngest Child

4. SECTION B (Parenting Questionnaire)
TABLE 14: TOTAL SCORES FOR CHILD-REARING STYLES AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Research
Participant
Child Rearing Styles of Parents Prosocial
Behavior
of Children
Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive Uninvolved
1 37 30 24 21 119
2 37 30 22 14 126
5. QUESTION 1
5.1 COMPARRISON OF THE CHILD-REARING STYLES OF THE PARENTS
INVOLED IN THE RESEACH:
Table 14 indicates the following:
 Both mothers scored the highest in the Authoritative child-rearing style with
an equal score of 37 ;
 Both mothers scored 30 in the Authoritarian child-rearing style;
 Mrs. 1 scored 24 in the Permissive Child-rearing style, and Mrs. 2 scored 22 in
the Permissive style and
 Mr. 1 scored 21 in the Uninvolved Child rearing style, and Mrs. 2 scored 14 in
the
Uninvolved style.
According to Berk (2013) the Authoritative child-rearing style social involves high
acceptance and involvement, of the parents. The parent also needs to have adaptive
control techniques, and appropriated autonomy granting. This parenting style promotes

cognitive, emotional and social competence from early childhood into adolescence in
children of diverse temperaments. Over time, the authoritative style creates a positive
emotional context for parental influence as the relationship between parenting and
hild e s att i utes e o es i easi gl idi e tio al.
Both mothers indicate that they foster a relationship with their child based on affection
a d oope atio . B sho i g a th a d affe tio a d atte ti el liste to the hild s
needs they are establishing an enjoyable and emotional fulfilling parent-child
relationship.
Although both mothers scored high on the Authoritative child-rearing parenting style.
The equally high scores in the Authoritarian child-rearing style needs to be considered.
Maccoby and Martin (cited in Darling, 1993) states that authoritative and authoritarian
styles are defined by responsiveness and demandingness, and explicitly separates
parenting discussion from communicating patterns. Braumrind (1983) distinguished two
aspects of demandingness and firm control. Both authoritative and authoritarian parent
are high in firm control, but authoritarian parents are highly restrictive.
Taking specific items on the questionnaire inconsideration, it is clear that both these
mothers scored high on item 12, 27 and 31. The probability for both mothers will be to
engage in psychological cont ol, i hi h the atte pt to take ad a tage of the hild s
psychological needs by introducing manipulation in their verbal expressions,
individuality and attachment of the mother-child relationship.
Scoring low on Permissive and Uninvolved child-rearing styles indicates however that
both these mothers are involved and caring towards their children.
The amount of time spend with the child (55 hours and 112 hours) are an indication of
thei o it e t to a ds the hild s ets i te est.

5.2 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THESE CHILD-REARING STYLES ON CHILDREN’S
DEGREE OF PROSCIAL BEHAVIOR, TABLES 1 AND 2 REFER:
Mrs. 2 scored higher (126) than Mrs. 1 (119) on the prosocial behavior questionnaire.
Participant 1 is a mother of two children, and has never been married, she spend most
of her time at work and with her children. As a coulerd person she lives in close
community with her father and mother, a Lager kin network. The child involved stay
with the grandparents during the day. The interesting fact here is, although the mother
is a single parent of two children she differentiated herself to become a qualified
beautician, and stays in a suburb conducive for favorable development for children. The
impact of SES, cultural and ethnic differences between the two participants seems to be
reduced, due to a positive environment and the quality of the influence of the grand-
parents on the child. Although many low-SES parents feel powerless, this mother are
empowered by her employer and is emotionally healthy and stable. Both these parents
emphasize external characteristics, such as obedience, politeness, neatness, and
cleanliness to their children.
Forgel et al. (cited in Berk, 2013) argues that research suggest that girls are not naturally
more nurturing than boys, and before the age of 5, boys and girls spend an equal
amount of time talking and playing with babies. Berk (2013) argues that it would be
reasonable to expect differences in emotional sensitivity, in extending empathy,
sympathy, and prosocial behavior, between boys and girls of this age but evidence to
this effect is mixed and not concrete. The children indicated in this research, is a girl of 3
years and the boy of 4 thus gender did not influence the results of the research.
The lower score of Mrs.1 on prosocial behavior of children might be related to the
affluence of the mother in her work environment. Berk (2013) argues that; despite the
advanced education and material wealth, affluent parents- those in prestigious
occupations – too often fail to engage in family interaction and parenting that promotes
favorable development.

The above results are a clear indication that the extended-family household, in which
one or more relatives live with the parent-child nuclear family unit, is the vital feature of
the ethnic minority family that enabled Mrs.2 to rear her child successful. These results
were obtained despite the economic deprivation and possible prejudice against there
circumstances. The family system safeguarded her hild s de elop e t u de
conditions of a high stressed life.
5.3CONCLUSION
According to Tutorial Letter 101 for PSYHONM (2015) the parenting questionnaire is not
yet standardised and only indicates the tendency of the parent to use a certain
childrearing style. The reliability and validity of the results are thus just an indication of a
possible outcome on the child rearing-st le of the othe s involved in the research.
However Section C was not indicated by the Tutorial Letter as not being standardised,
thus the assumptions made by the student might be an indication of prosocial behavior
tendencies of the children involved in the research.

6. ASSIGMENT 02; QUESTIONNAIRES:
TABLE 3: AUTHORITATIVE CHILD-REARING STYLE
Question Number Scores of Research
Participant 1
Scores of Research
Participant 2
1 3 5
8 5 5
11 5 4
15 3 3
16 4 4
20 4 3
21 5 5
25 4 3
26 4 5
Total Scores: 37 37
TABLE 4: AUTHORITARIAN CHILD-REARING STYLE
Participant 1
Scores of Research
Participant 2
2 4 3
4 3 2
7 5 4
12 2 4
17 1 4
22 4 4
27 4 4
30 4 3
31 3 2
Total Scores: 30 30

TABLE 5: PERMISSIVE CHILD-REARING STYLE
Participant 1
Scores of Research
Participant 2
3 3 2
5 4 5
6 2 1
9 2 2
13 2 2
33 3 2
34 1 1
35 5 5
36 2 2
Total Scores: 24 22
TABLE 6: UNINVOLVED CHILD-REARING STYLE
Participant 1
Scores of Research
Participant 2
10 2 2
14 1 1
18 3 2
19 2 2
23 2 1
24 3 2
28 2 1
29 2 2
32 4 1
Total Scores: 21 14

TABLE 7: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: EMPATHY
Question Number Scores of the Child of
Research Participant 1
Scores of the Child of
4 5 5
17 4 4
18 4 4
19 5 5
25 5 5
26 5 4
29 4 4
31 5 4
Total Scores: 31 35
TABLE 8: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: AWARENESS OF DOING WRONG
20 3 4
21 2 5
22 3 3
23 4 3
24 3 4
Total Scores: 15 19

TABLE 9: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: COOPERATION
1 3 3
2 4 4
3 4 3
9 5 3
27 3 5
28 3 4
Total Scores: 22 22
TABLE 10: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: HELPING BEHAVIOR
5 3 3
8 3 4
11 1 5
12 4 4
Total Scores: 11 16
TABLE 11: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: AWARENESS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM
6 3 2
7 3 3
16 4 5
32 5 3
Total Scores: 15 13

TABLE 12: KIND OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: ACCOMMODATING OTHERS
10 4 4
13 2 5
14 4 4
15 4 4
30 5 4
Total Scores: 14 21
TABLE 13: TOTAL SCORES FOR PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Child of
Research
Participa
nt
Empath
y
Awarene
ss of
Wrong
Doing
Cooperatio
n
Helping
Behavio
r
Awarene
ss of
Someone
Else s
Problem
Accommodati
ng Others
Total
Scor
e
1 37 15 22 11 15 19 119
2 35 19 22 16 13 21 126
7. PART B OF ASSIGNMENT 02
7.1 INTRODUCTION
U de the headi g A I teg ati e odel of P oso ial Beha io Eisenberg & Fabes
(1998) argues that it must be evident that prosocial behavior is an outcome of multiple
individual and situational factors.
Eisenberg & Faber (1993) defines prosocial behavior as voluntary behavior intended to
benefit another. According to them prosocial behaviors maybe performed for a host of
reasons, including egoistic, other –oriented, and practical reasons. The subgroup
behaviors labeled altruism is of importance to gain more understanding of morality. A

common definition of altruism is intrinsically motivated, voluntary behavior intended to
benefit another. Eisenberg & Mussen (cited in Eisenberg & Faber, 1993) gives the
following examples of altruism; act of concern for others by internalized values, goals,
and self-rewards rather than by the expectation of concrete or social rewards or the
avoidance of punishment.
Kartner et al. (2010) argues that early prosocial behavior emerges in a toddle s se o d
year of life and increases in frequency and variety over this time. Zahn-Waxler et al.
(cited in Kartner et al. , 2010) says that these behaviors of the toddle s a e i espo se
to a othe pe so s dist ess, the toddle ill sho p oso ial eha io that is desig ed to
alle iate that pe so s egati e affe ti e state. Consensus in literature is; that these
behaviors are motivated by empathetic concern, which can be defined as a vicarious
emotional reaction that involves feelings of sorrow or concern for the distressed or
needy other.
Hoffman (1975) was the first to theorize that in order to experience empathetic concern
one must be able to differentiate between what happens to others and what happens
to oneself (Kartner et al., 2010). Research has followed this line of thought that
prosocial behavior is related to the development of early self-concept and self-other
differentiation.
In an article of Kathy Preasse (2008) she wrote P oso ial behavior is essential to the
well-being of children, children must learn to act in an appropriate manner, one that is
oth e efi ial to the a d to othe s . P easse a gues that p oso ial skills
begins in infancy with the development of healthy attachments to parents and
caregiver(s).
Research from Symonds (1939) to Dornbusch et al. (1987- ) stated that the values
parents hold and the goals towards which they socialize their children are critical
determents of parenting behavior (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). These socialization goals
include both the hild s a uisitio of spe ifi skills, a d eha io a d the hild s

development of more global qualities. Darling and Steinberg (1993) proposed that the
attributes of parenting influenced by these goals are of two distinct types: parenting
practices and parenting style. One advantage of detangling parenting practice from is
that it facilitates looking at variability in parenting styles both from within and across
families that includes cultural and ethical differences.
It is clear that social development is complex and closely intertwined with other areas of
development: cognitive, physical, emotional, linguistic, and aesthetic. The National
Association for education of young children in America (NAEYC; Bredekamp & Copple,
1997) emphasize the need for socialization and development of social skills as a vital
part of early childhood education (Preusse, 2008).
Taking the abovementioned facts and research in account, it must be evident that
prosocial behavior is an outcome of multiple individual and situational factors. For the
purpose of Part B of this assignment this argument will be discussed with reference to:
(a) Cultural factors;
(b) Socialization of prosocial behavior within the family and
(c) The hild s i di idual ha a te isti s.
7.2 CULTURAL FACTORS
Research on the cultural bases of prosocial responding provides insight into the role of
the environment, in contrast to the strictly biological factors, in prosocial development
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
Berk (2013) argues that the field of child development is becoming increasingly aware
that children grow up in distinct context, a unique combination of personal and
environmental circumstances that can result in a different path of change. According to
Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) little research has been done concerning cultural influences
on prosocial development. Berk (2013) emphasize that researchers in this day are more
conscious than ever before of cultural diversity in the hild s de elop e t.

However it is clear from anthropological literature and psychological studies in non-
Western cultures that societies vary greatly in the degree to which prosocial and
cooperative behaviors are normative (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Research in which
prosocial behaviors and values have been contrasted across cultures is consistent with
single-culture studies in highlighting the importance in culture in prosocial development.
Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) acknowledge the investigations of laboratory studies,
naturalistic observational research, and studies of moral reasoning and values in various
cultures. For this assignment credit will also be given to cognitive and social influences,
as well as studies done between sympathy/distress and prosocial behavior with children
from Western and non-Western cultures.
7.2.1 Laboratory Studies
Much of the work on cross-culture and sub-cultural variation in prosocial behavior is
embedded in the research on cooperation, competition, and allocation behavior. Many
of this work is not reviewed. Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) says that it is noteworthy that
researchers consistently have found that children from traditional rural and semi-
agricultural communities and relatively traditional subcultures are more cooperative
than children from urban or westernized cultures.
Findings for other types of prosocial tasks have not produced consistent evidence of
cultural effects. However Yinon,Sharon,Azgad,& Barshir (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes,
1998) found that differences in kibbutz and non-kibbutz people may increase with age;
researchers have found that kibbutz adults are more helpful than people raised in small
agricultural communities without a communal philosophy
7.2.2 Observational Research
According to Eisenberg & Fabes (19918) systematic observation of prosocial behavior in
different cultures are rare. A classic study done by Whiting and Whitting (1973, 1975),
operationalized prosocial behavior as a composite index of offering helping, offering
support and making helpful suggestions. Cultures in which children scored high on
prosocial behavior tended to differ from other cultures on several dimensions.

Child e s prosocial behavior also associated with early assignment of chores and taking
responsibility for the fa il s economical welfare and the welfare of the family
members. Graves and Graves (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) had consistent findings
on data on chores, and found that children, particularly girls, from urban settings
performed fewer chores and were less prosocial than were children raised in traditional
extended families.
Although children in some non-Western cultures may be more prosocial than other
children in industrialized Western societies, there are few data on processes that may
mediate cultural differences in prosocial behavior.
7.2.3 Moral Reasoning, Values, and Beliefs about Social Responsibility
Cultural norms regarding the importance of harmony among people and social
responsibility clearly differ across cultures and subcultures. What makes it difficult in
making cross-cultural comparisons is that the cultures differ considerably in valuing of
different types of prosocial actions. Westerners may value prosocial acts that appear to
be based on endogenous motivation more than do people from traditional cultures,
whereas people from traditional cultures value prosocial actions that reflect
responsiveness to othe s stated eeds a d e ip o al o ligatio s Eise e g & Fa es,
1998).
7.2.4 Cognitive and social influences in a sociocultural context
Kartner and Keller (2010) in a cross-cultural study found that the mechanism underlying
emotional contagion play an important role in motivating prosocial behavior; due to
fundamental organizational features of the nervous system.
According to cross-cultural perspectives on development, cultural emphases on
particular values and socialization towards cultural values accelerate development in
specific domains. In this way, the a etake s socialization goals acts as a proximal
e ha is hi h ultu e shapes toddle s p osocial behavior. Consensus in cross-
culture literature is that empathic concern and prosocial behavior are the central
importance in cultural contexts that have been described as collectivistic. In contras

independent cultures focus more on individual autonomy. The interdependent
sociocultural context, values of interpersonal relatedness play important roles both as
alues a d guidi g p i iples fo i di idual s o eha io a d so ializatio goals
(Kartner & Keller, 2010).
Kartner and Keller (2010) propose, o the asis of Kelle s odel of ultu all i fo ed
pathways, that, depending on the social cultural context, toddlers may follow different
pathways to develop the same outcome. Their study indicates that there may be
cultural-specific developmental pathways to prosocial behavior. In sociocultural context
that fa o auto o o e elated ess, toddle s p oso ial eha io see s to e
grounded in empathetically perceiving the subjective state that the other person is in.
7.2.5 Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior in cultures
Trommsdorf et al. (2007) present a study to test cultural differences of emotional
reactions and prosocial behavior of preschool children from different cultures. The study
supported the findings of Kartner and Keller as stated in section 8.4.
Trommsdorf et al. (2007) highlighted the strength of positive relations between
sympathy and prosocial behavior in young children, emphasizing that it is moderated by
culture.
7.2.6 Conclusion
The differences of hild e s behavior in different cultural contexts is evident. Further
cross-cultural studies is needed in order to create a better understanding regarding the
development of prosocial behavior in a cultural context. The results of all the above
mentioned cultural studies, support the need for further studies on the prosocial
behavior in a cultural context.

8. SOCIALIZATION OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE
FAMILY
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Individuals are born with varying dispositional properties or capacities to feel empathy
and engage in other-oriented caring actions. Parents and other agents of socializing
respond to individual differences in the early-emerging emotional and social tendencies
of infants and toddlers, tailoring their own actions in ways that foster or redirect
dispositional traits. The socialization of prosocial development progresses through the
ongoing and dynamic exchanges between children and their parents, siblings, peers,
teachers, and culture. This give-and-take nature of social influence underlines the
complex processes shaping social and emotional development (Hastings et al., 2011).
According to Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) The prevailing view of socialization is that the
parent-child relationship is bidirectional in influence and complex, and this relationship
and its outcomes is embedded in the larger family, neighborhood, and culture. This
complexity however is not reflected in the existing empirical research on socialization of
prosocial behavior.
8.2 THE FAMILY AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM
Berk(2013) argues that contemporary research view the family from a social systems
perspective- as a complex set of interacting relationships influenced by the larger social
context. The family members influence one another directly and indirectly. Effective co-
parenting depends on cooperation between parents.

8.3 DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF FAMILIES AND FAMILY MEMBERS
Whiting & Whiting (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) argues that one might expect that
hild e s p oso ial eha io to be related to the SES of their families. But findings
regarding the socioeconomic relation to prosocial behavior are inconsistent.
Family structure might play a role in social status differences in prosocial behavior.
Child e s o fo ti g eha io positi el elates ith pa e tal depe de o the hild,
such dependency is particularly high for boys in mother-headed homes.
Musum-Miller (cited in Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) argues that parental absence versus
p ese e a ha e a effe t o hild e s p oso ial de elop e t. Fi di gs o fa il
size are inconsistent, however some research found that family size and prosocial
behavior or sympathy are unrelated; some found children of larger families are more
generous.
Findings concerning ordinal position are limited. First born children, particularly girls,
have been found to be more willing to give commodities to peers, and intervene in an
emergency. Older siblings in comparison with younger siblings, more often behave
prosaically in sibling interaction. In general it seems that older children are somewhat
more prosocial, especially with prosocial interactions with younger children (Eisenberg
& Fabes, 1998).
8.4 PARENTAL WARMTH AND QUALITY OF THE PARENT-CHILD
RELATIONSHIP
Hastings et al. (2011) stats that recent reviews have generally agreed on a consistent
profile of childrearing that typifies the socialization experiences of more prosocial
children. The parent of these children are authoritative in style, balancing reasonable
exertions of control and consistent expectations for maturity with flexibility and
espo si e ess to hild e s desires.

Eiseberg & Fabes (cited in Hastings, 2011) said these parents are warm towards their
children, enjoy sharing activities with them, and provide praise more than criticism.
They engage in prosocial acts themselves, encourage such behavior from their children,
and provide explanations for these excepted behaviors. They eschew harsh punishment,
rigid strictness, and strong expressions of hostility or rejection.
8.5 SOCIALIZING WITHIN THE FAMILY, CHILD-REARING STYLES
There are three feature differentiated major child-rearing styles:
 Acceptance and involvement;
 Behavioral control, and
 Autonomy granting.
The Authoritative child-rearing style involves high expectance and involvement from the
parent. It promotes cognitive emotional, and social competence from early childhood
i to adoles e e i hild e ith di e s te pe a e ts. This hild-rearing style creates
a positi e e otio al pa e t hild elatio ship a d the hild e s att i utes e o e
increasingly bidirectional.
The Authoritarian child-raring style is low in acceptance and involvement, high in
coercive behavioral and psychological control, and low in autonomy granting. This child-
rearing style is associated with anxious, withdrawn, dependent, child behavior and with
high rates of anger, defiance, and aggression.
The permissive child-rearing style, is high is acceptance, low in behavioral control, and
lax in autonomy granting. Children reared permissively are typical impulsive,
disobedient, rebellious, demanding, and dependent. The uninvolved child-rearing style
combines low acceptance and involvement with little behavioral control and
indifference to autonomy issues. At its extreme, it constitutes neglect, disrupting
virtually all aspects of development.

8.6 MODELLING AND REINFORCEMENT
8.6.1 Laboratory Studies
According to the social learning theory, one reason people may imitate models is
because they view them receiving rewards for prosocial behavior. Some researchers
found that children imitate reinforced models more than models who have not been
reinforced (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).Models who control valued resources appear to be
relatively powerful models, as are models perceived as competent. Nurturance of a
model also has an effect o hild e s i itatio of prosocial behavior, although findings
depend upon experimental context. There is evidence that preschool children model the
prosocial behaviors and nurturance of adults with whom they had an extended
nurturant relationship.
8.6.2 Modeling by Real-life Socializers
Research is consistent with the view that childre odel pa e t s p oso ial eha io . I
the first two years of life, the children do not seem consistently to model maternal
sha i g o helpi g of dist essed pe so . Ho e e , othe s odeli g of helpi g
behaviors such as participation in household chores seems to enhance the like-hood of
1- and 2-year-olds.
Research findings on parents of prosocial offspring converge with experimental
laboratory findings in implicating modeling in the development of prosocial behavior
8.6.3 Emotional Socialization and Prosocial Tendencies
Results of research in this regard are consistent with the view that parental practices
that help children to cope with their own negative emotions in a constructive way
fashion and foster sympathy and prosocial behavior rather than personal distress
reactions.
Although data are scant, it appears that parental practices that help children to regulate
their negative emotion rather than become over aroused are likely to foster sympathy
and prosocial behavior. There is however a fine line between parental practices that

help children to regulate and understand their own emotion and practices that focus on
negative emotions. The effects of parental emotion-related practices might be expected
to a ith the hild s emotional reactivity. More work needs to be done in this regard
8.7 Conclusion
Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) argues that it would appear that some constellation of
parental practice, beliefs, and characteristic, as well as emotional atmosphere of the
ho e, a e elated to hild e s p oso ial eha io de elop e t. “tau s (cited in
Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) says that findings are generally consistent with assertion that
the development of prosocial behavior is enhanced by a sense of connecting to others,
exposure to parental warmth, adult guidance, and children participating in prosocial
activities. Staub (1992) also believes that numerous factors contributing to prosocial
development derives from socialization- such as emotional independence, a sense of
responsibility for others, the capacity for independence, broad experience, and moral
courage - seldom have been examined in studies with children.
The role of the child in socialization of prosocial behavior is a key topic for further
research and attention.
9. THE CHILD’S INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
9.1 INTRODUTION
Hastings et al. (2011) Argues that the substantial genetic contribution to prosocial
behavior cannot be overlooked, nor can hild e s active creation of opportunities to
have prosocial development supported by socializing forces. Children become more
prosocial over time when they start being more prosocial. When they behave in a more
prosocial manner towards family members, peers, and others, they receive support and
reinforcement for their actions.

Eise e g & Fa es sa s the e a e a u e of aspe ts of hild e s pe so alities
o dispositio s that ight e e pe ted to elate to hild e s p oso ial espo di g. The
agree with Hastings et al. (2011) that although differences in personality may reflect
both constitutional and environmental factors, some personality characteristics, such as
tendency to experience negative emotions, seem to a genetic basis.
9.2 INTELLIGENCE AND COGNITIVE CAPACITIES
Because cognitive abilities may underline the ability to discern others needs or distress
or the capacity to devise ways to respond to others need, a relationship exists between
the measures of intelligence and prosocial responding, particularly prosocial behavior
involving higher-level moral reasoning or the sophisticated cognitive skills.
9.3 PERSPECTIVE TALKING
It is assumed that perspective-talking skills increase the like hood of individuals
ide tif i g, u de sta di g, a d s pathizi g ith othe s i dist ess o eed. Hoff a
(cited in Eisen e g&Fa es, p oposed that i p o e e t i ou g hild e s
perspective-talki g a ilit is iti al to hild e s a ilities to diffe e tiate et ee thei
o a d othe s dist ess a d to a u atel u de sta d the atu e of othe s e otio al
reactions.
9.4 PERSONALITY CORRELATES
Aspects of temperament or personality are associated with individual differences in
both the inclination to assist others and in the tendency to enact prosocial behaviors
when motivationally inclined to do so. Literature on personality correlates provides
some clues regarding why certain people are more prosocial in general, and why some
people but not others assist in certain context. Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) name the
following:

 Sociability and Shyness
Sociability and shyness, are likely to have a temperamental basis to influence
when children assist. Sociability is particularly likely to be associated with the
pe fo a e of p oso ial eha io s that a e spo ta eousl e itted a d
directed to unfamiliar setting. Extroversion was related to elementary school
hild e s helpi g i a e e ge he othe pee as present. introverts tend
to helping by approaching the injured person. Shyness may be more likely to
inhibit prosocial behavior involving contact with another if the child is relatively
young.
 Social Competence and Socially Appropriate Behavior
Child e s prosocial behavior often correlates with the indexes of socially
appropriate behavior. Prosocial children tend to be viewed by adults a socially
skilled and constructive copers. They are high in social problem-solving skills,
positive social interaction with peers, developmentally advanced, and
cooperation, and low in aggression. There are evidence that psychoticism,
Machiavellianism, competitiveness, and aggression, acting-out behaviors and
delinquency are associated with low empathy, as social competency is linked to
sympathy.
Children who are prosocial tend to have positive relationships and interaction
with peers.
 Assertiveness and Dominance
Assertiveness and dominance also have been associated with frequency and type
of hild e s p oso ial eha io s. Asse ti e children are relatively high in
sympathy versus personal distress reactions and prosocial behavior,
spontaneously emitted in helping of others and sharing. However children who
are simply assertive but seek to dominate others may be low in prosocial

behavior. Nonassertive, nondominant children tend to be prosocial in response
to a request, due to frequent request for help and assistance.
 Self-Esteem and Related Constructs
It appea s that the e is a positi e elatio ship et ee hild e s self-esteem
and their prosocial tendencies, but more so for older than younger children. The
asso iatio et ee olde hild e s self-conceptions and prosocial behavior
probably is bidirectional in regard to causality. Children who feel good about
the sel es a e a le to fo us o othe s eeds e ause thei o eeds a e
being met. They also may feel they have the competencies to help. Arguments
was made that helping others may foster the development of self-efficacy.
 Value and Goals
Values is an important component of the self. Colby and Damon (cited in
Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) note that two morally relevant characteristics that are
dramatically evident in adult moral exemplars: (a) certainty or clarity about what
they believed was right and about their own personal responsibility to act in
ways consistent with those beliefs, and (b) the unity of self and moral goals in
their conception of own identity and integration of moral and personal goals. In
research with children evidence that prosocial behavior is correlated with the
measure of more functioning, including other-oriented values. It appears that
older children and adolescents who have internalized moral values and who view
morality as central to their self-concept are particularly likely to be altruistic.
 Regulation and Emotionality
According to Eisenberg & Fabes (1998) Prosocial children tend to be well
regulated and low in impulsivity, for boys only. Similarly, sympathy has been
linked to regulation in children whereas personal distress sometimes has been
associated with low regulation among adults and infants. Children who are

emotionally positive- a characteristic that often is viewed as an outcome of
emotional regulation also tend to be prosocial and empathic/sympathetic. In
contrast, the data pertaining to the relation between negative emotionality and
prosocial responding are more complex. Prosocial behavior generally has been
negatively related to children s negative emotionality, including anger, fear,
anxiety, or sadness. It will be useful to differentiate among various types of
negative emotions, between expressed emotions, and between i di idual s
general intensity and intensity of negative emotionality
9.5 CONCLUSION
The development of prosocial skills begins in infancy with the development of healthy
attachments to parents and caregivers. The early years are the time for children to
develop prosocial skills by interacting with other children, preparing them to be adults
that add value to society. More research in this regard is of ad most importance.
Doing this assignment again highlight the importance of research in order to enable
people- helpers to add value in such an important context of our society.

10. REFERENCES:
Berk, L. (2013). Child Development (Ninth Edition ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Corey, G. (2013). Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy (9th Edition ed.).
Canada: Brook/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487- 496.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, & R. Fabes. Handbook
of Child Psychology.
Hastings, P., McShane, K., Parker, R., & Ladha, F. (2010). Ready to make nice: Parental
socialization of young sons and daughters' prosocial behavior with peers. The Journal of
Gentic Psycholgy: Research and Theory on Human Development, 168(2), 177 - 200.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.2.177-200
Hastings, P., Utendale, W., & Sullivan, C. (2011). The socialization of prosocial development. In J.
Grusec (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (pp. 638 - 663). Guilford
Press.
Kartner, J., Keller, H., & Chaudhary, N. (2010). Cognitive and social influences on early prosocial
behavior in two sociocultura contexts. American Psychological Association, 46(4), 905-
914. doi:10.1037-a0019718
Preusse, K. (2008). Fostering prosocial behavior in young childrem. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from
Earlychildhood News. The Professional Resource for Teachers and Parents:
www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article
Trommsdorff, G., Friedelmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy,distressand prosocial behavior
of preschool children in four cultures. The International Journal of Behavioural
Development, 31(3), 284-293. doi:10.1177/0165025407076441
Tutorial Letter 101, PSYHONM (2015). Department of Psychology, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.

Tutorial Letter 102, PSYHONM. (2015). Department of Psychology, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.

Child Development Research on Parenting Styles

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Child Development Research on Parenting Styles

Similar to Child Development Research on Parenting Styles (20)

More from Cynthia King

More from Cynthia King (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Child Development Research on Parenting Styles