Cultural Influences on Socialization Goals and Parenting Behaviors of Mongolian Parents

Abstract

It has recently been shown by different researchers that parenting and socialization goals are meaningfully shaped by cultural contexts. Therefore, the present study aimed at comparing socialization goals and parenting practices among three groups of parents to allow insights into cultural influences on parenting and socialization goals under the condition of immigration. The parent groups were (a) an immigrant group of Mongolian parents in Germany, (b) Mongolians in their native culture, and (c) German parents. Results showed little differences between the three groups of parents. However, it could be demonstrated that Mongolians in Germany rated socialization goals more similarly to Germans than Mongolians in their native culture, indicating a change under new cultural influences. Regarding parenting, Germans used less corporal punishment and monitored the activities of children more closely than both Mongolian groups, while power assertion was used less by Mongolians in their native culture than Mongolians and Germans in Germany. The similarities and differences in socialization goals and parenting practices are discussed with regard to cultural influences.

Keywords

socialization goals parenting culture immigration

Parenting behaviors are strongly shaped by cultural influences and cultural norms (Keller, Borke, Yovsi, Lohaus, & Jensen, 2005). In other words, culture is inextricably associated with socialization goals and child-rearing behavior of parents; it directly renders the familial values and practices and shapes the interactions within a child’s family (Greenfield & Suzuki, 1998). Parents from different cultures have been found to express distinctive opinions about parenting and their parenting practices (Keller, Borke, Lamm, Lohaus, & Yovsi, 2010). Within this system of cultural influences, socialization goals are particularly powerful as they represent the motives behind parenting and reflect the cultural background (Harkness & Super, 1996).

Different Cultural Models and Their Relation to Socialization Goals and Parenting

Kagitcibasi (1996, 2005) differentiates three cultural models that are of high relevance for the formation of socialization goals and parenting behaviors. The three models—independence, interdependence, and autonomous relatedness—are characterized by combinations of interpersonal distance (relatedness vs. separateness) and agency (autonomy vs. heteronomy). Keller (2012) highlights that Western families (i.e., families in independent cultures) put more emphasis on autonomy and self-regulation, whereas non-Western families (i.e., families in interdependent cultures) value heteronomy and relatedness to a larger extent. Due to these differences, parents in independent cultural contexts (“Western nations”) tend to focus on the development of personal qualities and support the development of characteristics facilitating self-enhancement and self-maximization. Instead, parents who live in an interdependent culture consider the individual as interrelated with others. Thus, parents foster characteristics that lead to harmonic functioning of a social unit. The third cultural model, which can best be described as a combination of the other two models, is referred to as autonomous relatedness (Keller et al., 2006). In this cultural model, parents focus on harmonic integration in the family as well as on autonomy.

It is now widely accepted that the cultural context influences specific socialization goals and parenting behavior (Citlak, Leyendecker, Schölmerich, Driessen, & Harwood, 2008; Harkness & Super, 1996; Keller et al., 2006). In times of globalization and transnational migration, the social environment in which families live is not stable and cultural contexts can be subject of change (Arnett, 2002). Comparing socialization goals of immigrant parents with native parents can therefore allow insights into the values that parents have in the child-rearing process, and how such values persist or change with migration experiences (Keller et al., 2006). The international literature to date has demonstrated that changes of the cultural environment can alter socialization goals of immigrants in the direction of the host culture over time (Citlak et al., 2008), with accompanying and lasting changes in parenting behaviors (Carra, Lavelli, Keller, & Kärtner, 2013). More specifically, most of the research on socialization goals and parenting of immigrant parents in Germany is focused on large populations such as parents with Turkish descent. In contrast, this study addresses the smaller immigrant group of Mongolians. For that reason, we investigated parenting behavior and socialization goals of Mongolian parents living in Germany compared with Mongolian parents living in Mongolia, and German parents.

Parenting in Germany and Mongolia

In Germany, 86% of the 80 million inhabitants live in cities (Albert, Trommsdorff, & Mishra, 2007). People in Germany are mainly of Christian religion (34% Protestant, 34% Roman Catholic). Muslims represent a minor (3.7%) part and approximately one third of the people in Germany is unaffiliated or has another religion (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], 2014). The main German cultural context can be described as independent (Hofstede-Centre, 2014). Inglehart, Basañez, and Moreno (1998) were able to demonstrate that most of the German respondents in their study valued independence as important (73%), whereas less of them rated obedience as important (22%). Keller and colleagues (2010) lined out that German parents direct their parenting behaviors toward the development of self-regulation and autonomy and that this is a priority right from infancy. As an example, the authors described that parents encourage their children to sleep in a separate room on their own. This may also manifest in parenting behavior such as responsible parenting, which is characterized by communication about decisions and non-impulsive parenting behavior.

The second group of parents that is important for the present study is Mongolian parents. In Mongolia, approximately 68% of the inhabitants live in urban areas today and the most widespread religion is Buddhism (50%), whereas only 6% of the inhabitants in Mongolia are of Christian religion and 40% do not have any religion (CIA, 2014). In accordance to Kagitcibasi’s (2005) model, the modern Mongolian culture might best be described as autonomous related, where educated middle-class families live in a society with an interrelated cultural heritage (cf. Chao, 2000 for findings on Chinese mothers). The family, rather than the individual person, is important for Mongolians. Traditionally, Mongolian families consist of a married couple and their children (Oyunbileg, Sumberzul, Udval, Wang, & Janes, 2009). Traditionally, Mongolians lived together in a tent (also called ger or yurt), which brought all family members physically and psychologically close to each other (Oyunbileg et al., 2009). These close family relationships remain if Mongolians live in bigger cities. Another important aspect to mention is that Mongolian parents have an authoritarian stance toward their children (Baabar, 1996), which focuses on respect toward elders and obedience and is related to powerful assertion of socialization goals (Oyunbileg et al., 2009). Moreover, it has been described that Mongolian children are often confronted with physical force and with corporal punishment by their parents (Kohrt, Kohrt, Waldman, Saltzman, & Carrion, 2004). Due to the high prevalence of inner familiar aggression in Mongolia parents, see corporal punishment and physical force as an acceptable parenting behavior (Kohrt et al., 2004).

According to the German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012), a total of 4,182 people with Mongolian citizenship lived in Germany in 2011. Their mean age was 30.7 years and they lived on average about 9.7 years in Germany. Only 35% of them are married, and 9% were born in Germany. Since they constitute a small immigrant group, Mongolians are often subsumed in statistics under the group of immigrants from the far-east (Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung, 2009). The educational level of immigrants from the far-east is relatively high, with 63% of the second generation completing the Abitur that allows them to enroll in university; and 43% graduating from university.

The Present Study

The primary goal of the present study was to compare socialization goals and parenting behaviors of Mongolian parents living in Mongolia, Mongolian parents living in Germany, and German parents. We expected differences between Mongolian parents in Mongolia and German parents with respect to socialization goals reflecting independent and interdependent cultural backgrounds. First, it was expected that Mongolians value goals reflecting independence similar to Germans, but prefer goals reflecting interdependent values more than German parents. This would imply that Mongolian parents in Mongolia would rate the socialization goals used in this study (“to get one’s own way,” “choosing friends by personal choice,” and “striving for personal knowledge and development”) as marginally lower or as high as Germans. However, socialization goals representing interdependent values (in this study: “work hard and precise,” “conform to social orders,” and “being humble and modest”) should be rated higher by Mongolian parents compared with German parents. With respect to the socialization goal “importance of religiosity” it was expected to find no differences between the three groups of parents, as the percentage of people belonging to a religion is comparable in Germany and Mongolia.

Previous research has shown that parents in different cultures use different parenting behaviors to foster either autonomy or heteronomy and relatedness or separateness in their children. Parents in an independent culture as Germany are expected to show more parenting behavior directed toward the development of autonomy and separateness. Parents in an autonomous related culture such as Mongolia should show parenting behaviors to foster relatedness as well as separateness and autonomy as well as heteronomy. In the present study, the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Frick, 1991) was used in a German version (Reichle & Franiek, 2009) to assess parenting behaviors. It was expected that German parents show more responsible parenting and less power assertion and corporal punishment compared with Mongolian parents living in Mongolia. We expected no differences in inconsistent parenting, positive parenting, low monitoring, and parental involvement.

Socialization goals and parenting behaviors change when parents immigrate to countries with a different culture (Carra et al., 2013). Parenting behaviors as well as socialization goals of Mongolians living in Germany should therefore reflect influences from both Mongolian and German culture and it was expected that the values for socialization goals and parenting behaviors would reflect a combination of the values of Mongolian and German parents.

Method

Participants

Data from 40 Mongolian parents living in Mongolia, 40 Mongolian parents living in Germany, and 40 German parents living in Germany were analyzed. The parents were recruited via the Internet and in local universities in Mongolia (Ulan Bator) and Germany (Frankfurt am Main). A detailed description of the sample is provided in Table 1. All three groups consisted primarily of mothers. The three groups did not differ with respect to educational level and children’s age. The groups differed significantly in the mean age of the parents, F(2, 117) = 17.11, p < .01, as well as the number of children in the family, F(2, 117) = 27.45, p < .01. German parents were significantly older and also had more children than Mongolians living in either Germany or Mongolia.

Table 1.

Sample Description.

	MG–M (n = 40)	MG–G (n = 40)	GER (n = 40)
Informant
Mothers	65%	63%	78%
Fathers	35%	37%	22%
Age of informant
M	31.6 years	32.4 years	36.8 years
SD	4.8 years	4.1 years	3.8 years
Marital status
Married/partnership	70%	88%	98%
Divorced/separated	23%	8%	3%
Single	3%	5%	0%
Other	5%	0%	0%
Education
Without degree	2.5%	2.5%	0%
General certificate of secondary education	2.5%	2.5%	6%
Higher education entrance qualification	95%	95%	94%
Age of child
M	5.8 years	5.8 years	6.4 years
SD	2.4 years	2.3 years	1.8 years
Children
M	1.3 children	1.3 children	2.1 children
SD	0.5 children	0.6 children	0.6 children

Note. Missing values caused percentages that do not add up to 100%. MG–M = Mongolians in Mongolia, MG–G = Mongolians in Germany, GER = German parents.

Material

Socialization goals and parenting behavior were assessed via parents’ self-report.

Socialization goals

Socialization goals were measured with seven items (IfD, 2006). These seven items were chosen as they were representing socialization goals that were in accordance with the cultural model of independence or interdependence (three items per model). In addition, one item assessed the importance of religiosity. The items measured the importance of the different socialization goals and had to be rated by parents on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (especially unimportant) to 5 (especially important). The following socialization goals represented the independent model: (a) to get one’s own way, (b) choosing friends by personal choice, and (c) striving for personal knowledge and development. The socialization goals that represented the interdependent model were (a) work hard and precise, (b) conform to social orders, and (c) being humble and modest.

Parenting behavior

Parents were asked to respond to the extended (including the two dimensions responsibility and power assertion) German version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Reichle & Franiek, 2009) which was originally developed by (Frick, 1991). For Mongolian parents, this questionnaire was translated into their native language and a retranslation procedure was used to assure the accuracy of the translation. This questionnaire comprises 40 items, which had to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). It measures the frequency of various parenting behaviors and includes seven subscales: “Positive Parenting” (6 items; for example, “You let your child know when he or she is doing a good job with something.”), “Responsible Parenting” (6 items; for example, “You calmly explain to your child, why his or her behavior was wrong when he or she misbehaves.”), “Power Assertion” (6 items; for example, “If your child starts to negotiate with you, you say a word of command.”), “Inconsistent Parenting” (6 items; for example, “You let your child out of a punishment early—like lift restrictions earlier than you originally said.”), “Parental Involvement” (6 items; for example, “You play games or do other fun things with your child.”), “Low Monitoring” (6 items; for example, “Your child fails to leave a note or to let you know where he or she is going.”), and “Corporal Punishment” (4 items; for example, “You slap your child when he or she has done something wrong.”).

Procedure

The parents were recruited for this study via the Internet and at universities in Germany and in Mongolia. In addition, Mongolian groups in Germany were contacted to ask their members to participate in the study. The participation in the study was voluntary and the participants did not receive compensation for their participation. The questionnaire was presented as an online survey and participants were able to fill in the questionnaire at a time of their choice from their computers.

Results

Differences Between the Three Groups

Socialization goals

The seven items that measured socialization goals were compared between the three subgroups with a one-way ANOVA. The descriptive statistics and the internal consistencies can be found in Table 2. A significant effect was found for the socialization goal “striving for personal knowledge and development,” F(2, 117) = 3.16, p < .05, η² = .05. Post hoc comparisons (Scheffé test) yielded a difference between German parents and Mongolian parents living in Mongolia (p < .05). Surprisingly, Mongolian parents regarded this socialization goal, which reflects an independent value, as significantly more important than German parents. Mongolian parents in Germany valued this goal less than Mongolian parents in Mongolia, but more than German parents (ps < .05). The three groups also differed significantly regarding the socialization goal “conform to social orders,” F(2, 117) = 7.47, p < .01, η² = 0.11. Post hoc comparisons revealed that German parents and Mongolian parents in Mongolia significantly differed from each other, with Mongolian parents having higher values (p < .01). Mongolian parents in Germany rated the importance of this goal lower than Mongolians in Mongolia, but more important than German parents (ps < .05). Finally, the three groups significantly differed in how important they perceived the socialization goal “religiosity,” F(2, 117) = 10.71, p < .001, η² = 0.16. Post hoc comparisons showed that German parents valued the socialization goal religiosity significantly more than the two groups of Mongolian parents (p < .001). For the other socialization goals, no differences between German parents, Mongolian parents in Germany, and Mongolian parents in Mongolia could be found (all ps < .05).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Group Comparisons for Socialization Goals.

	MG–M (n = 40)		MG–G (n = 40)		GER (n = 40)
Goal	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Independent values
to get one’s own way	4.40	0.67	4.38	0.74	4.10	0.71	2.21	.11
choosing friends	4.45	0.68	4.15	0.77	4.30	0.76	1.66	.19
personal development	4.60	0.55	4.40	0.71	4.23	0.77	3.12	<.05
Interdependent values
work hard and precise	4.48	0.60	4.38	0.81	4.33	0.62	<1	.61
conform to orders	4.03	0.83	3.70	1.07	3.25	0.78	7.47	<.01
being humble	3.15	1.08	3.18	1.15	2.95	0.78	<1	.56
Religiosity	1.95	0.93	2.33	1.14	3.08	1.23	10.71	<.01

Note. Socialization goals answering options ranged from 1 to 5. MG–M = Mongolian parents living in Mongolia. MG–G = Mongolian parents living in Germany. GER = German parents.

Parenting behavior

Scale means were created for each subscale for further analyses. The descriptive statistics as well as the internal consistencies can be found in Table 3. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alphas) in this sample were comparable with the values reported by Reichle and Franiek (2009). However, some of the values were rather low (e.g., for the subscale low monitoring). Internal consistencies were comparable for all three subgroups. ANOVAs and post hoc comparisons (Scheffé tests) were computed to examine whether the three groups differed significantly in parenting behavior. No significant group differences were found for “Positive Parenting,” F(2, 117) = 2.06, p = .13, η² = 0.03, “Inconsistent Parenting,” F < 1, “Parental Involvement,” F(2, 104) = 2.39, p = .10, η² = 0.04, as well as “Responsible Parenting,” F(2, 117) = 1.57, p = .21, η² = 0.03. For the scale “Low Monitoring,” a significant difference was found, F(2, 117) = 13.57, p < .01, η² = 0.19, but this difference has to be interpreted with caution due to the low internal consistency of the scale. Mongolian parents living in Mongolia had higher values in “Low Monitoring” than German parents (p < .01). Mongolian parents living in Germany also reported significantly higher values in “Low Monitoring” than German parents (p < .01). The two groups of Mongolian parents did not differ significantly from each other (p = .96).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Group Comparisons for Parenting Behavior.

			MG–M (n = 40)		MG–G (n = 40)		GER (n = 40)
Scale	α RF	α N	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Positive parenting	.80	.84	4.16	0.58	4.40	0.43	4.28	0.55	2.06	.13
Inconsistent parenting	.67	.64	2.81	0.51	2.72	0.61	2.69	0.53	0.51	.60
Parental involvement	.66	.73	3.76	0.71	3.92	0.76	4.12	0.46	2.39	.10
Low monitoring	.75	.54	1.63	0.46	1.60	0.43	1.22	0.25	13.57	<.01
Power assertion	.71	.68	2.86	0.58	3.31	0.63	3.32	0.37	9.34	<.01
Corporal punishment	.60	.63	2.41	0.63	2.35	0.72	1.77	0.60	11.61	<.01
Responsible parenting	.72	.61	3.88	0.52	3.79	0.53	3.69	0.38	1.57	.21

Note. Scale means ranged from 1 to 5. MG–M = Mongolian parents living in Mongolia; MG–G = Mongolian parents living in Germany; GER = German parents; α RF = Cronbach’s alpha according to Reichle and Franiek (2009); α N = Cronbach’s alpha in this sample.

Moreover, the groups differed with regard to the use of “Power Assertion” as part of their parenting behavior, F(2, 117) = 9.34, p < .01, η² = 0.14. Mongolian parents living in Mongolia reported significantly less power assertion than Mongolian parents in Germany (p < .01) as well as German parents (p < .01). On the scale “Corporal Punishment,” a significant mean difference was also identified, F(2, 117) = 11.61, p < .01, η² = 0.17. German parents used a significantly lower amount of corporal punishment in child rearing compared with either Mongolians living in Mongolia (p < .01) or Mongolians living in Germany (p < .01).

Discussion

In this study, we examined cultural differences in socialization goals and parenting behavior among three groups of parents: Mongolians who lived in their native culture, Mongolians who immigrated to Germany, and German parents. The results revealed differences in the importance of three socialization goals (“striving for personal knowledge and development,” “conform to social orders,” and “religiosity”) reflecting independent and interdependent cultural values. As expected, the socialization goal “conform to social orders,” which reflects a goal that is highly valued in interdependent cultures, was rated highest by Mongolian parents who lived in their native country. German parents rated this socialization goal as significantly less important. Mongolian parents who lived in Germany rated the importance of this goal lower compared with Mongolians living in Mongolia, reflecting their change toward the importance that German parents attributed to this socialization goal.

In contrast to our hypothesis, the same results were found for the socialization goal “striving for personal knowledge and development”—a goal that reflects independent values. This was quite unexpected, because we had hypothesized that Mongolians in their native country would follow an autonomous related model and would therefore have values that are comparable with the values of German parents (Kagitcibasi, 2005). In an autonomous related culture, independent (here “stringing for personal knowledge and development”) as well as interdependent (here “conform to orders”) values are highly appreciated. Therefore, we had expected to find similar or marginally lower values for Mongolians than for German parents.

The finding that Mongolian parents rated the goal “striving for personal knowledge and development” as important might be explained by the characteristics of the sample. The parents living in Mongolia were mainly recruited at local universities in Ulan Bator. Thus, they had a higher level of education compared with the general population of Mongolian parents, and they might have desired for their children to have a self-paced life with enough space for personal development. This could have lead to such a high importance of this socialization goal. In a future study, it should be explored whether this finding can be replicated in Mongolian parents with other levels of education.

In addition, a difference with regard to the importance of the socialization goal religiosity was found. German parents rated religiosity as moderately important while both groups of Mongolian parents perceived it as rather unimportant. This was unexpected, as there is approximately the same rate of people without an affiliation to a religion in both countries. However, previous studies show that different religions can be associated with different forms of culture (Cohen & Hill, 2007). For example, protestant religion is described as an intrinsic, personal religion (Cohen & Hill, 2007) and as less collectivistic (Stark, 2009). The reason for the unexpected high value of religiosity in the German sample may therefore be due to the fact that there is a rather high percentage of Protestants, which fits rather well to the individualistic culture. This phenomenon should be investigated in further studies.

Taken together, the results reflect cultural distinctions in a way that the importance of different socialization goals by Mongolian parents changed with immigration experiences toward the values of parents in the new cultural context. Nonetheless, it has to be mentioned that not all expected differences could be found. In the present study, we were not able to demonstrate that parents in Mongolia valued the goal “work hard and precise” or be “humble and modest” more than German parents. This was not expected in this form.

Regarding parenting behavior, we found differences between the three groups in their usage of “corporal punishment,” “low monitoring,” and “power assertion.” German parents used less corporal punishment than Mongolian parents in Mongolia and in Germany. The two groups of Mongolian parents did not differ significantly from each other. This result demonstrated that Mongolian parents in Germany did not change their parenting behavior toward parenting that was reported by German parents. Instead, they maintained parenting behaviors that were more in accordance with their culture of origin. Unfortunately, to our knowledge there is currently no other literature on parenting behavior of Mongolian parents. The closest proximity to the findings presented here are other studies that have analyzed parenting practices of immigrant Chinese mothers (e.g., Chao, 2000, 2001; Chao & Tseng, 2002; Wu et al., 2002). These studies document that this group of parents tends to endorse an authoritarian style of raising their children, with parent–child relationships that can be characterized by punitive behavior and physical coercion.

German parents reported significantly less usage of “low monitoring” in their parenting compared with Mongolians in Germany or Mongolia. Parenting behaviors that are marked by low monitoring can be interpreted as reflecting a permissive style of raising a child. Parents with high values on this scale have only little information about the actions and behaviors of their children. The finding that Mongolian parents in Germany were more in accordance with Mongolian parents in Mongolia highlights again that Mongolians in Germany retained a parenting behavior that is more comparable with their culture of origin. However, this result has to be interpreted with caution because the internal consistency in this sample was rather low for this subscale. Alpha values of the subscale “Low Monitoring” were considerably lower for all three subsamples in our study than the ones reported for another German sample (Reichle & Franiek, 2009). This result may therefore be a measurement artifact.

As another result, parents from Mongolia used less “Power Assertion” compared with Germans and Mongolians living in Germany. Power assertion can be characterized by a devaluing attitude toward the child, a negative emotion and non-flexible rules, emphasizing parental power. This parenting behavior can be understood as a form of parenting that prevails parental power without using physical force. The values that were found in the present sample for German parents are comparable in their magnitude with the values that have been reported by Reichle and Franiek (2009). Surprisingly, Mongolian parents had significantly lower values on this scale. Mongolian parents seem to use this parental behavior less than German parents. The fact that Mongolian parents in Germany changed toward the direction of German parents in this parenting behavior dimension might be influenced by a phenomenon described by Uslucan (2010). The author lined out that immigrant parents use stricter discipline if they perceive a distance of their children from their native culture and its values. Also, as part of their immigration experience, Mongolian parents in Germany might have perceived that powerful assertion of parental power is accepted by German parents and might thus be motivated to use this behavior.

To summarize, there are some differences between German and Mongolian parents concerning their socialization goals and parenting behavior. Nonetheless, there are also a lot of similarities between both cultures. As we proposed Mongolia as a culture of autonomous relatedness, differences were expected for the interdependent variables but not so much for the independent ones.

The cross-cultural comparison of Germans and Mongolians presented here is of particular value as it extends our understanding of the impact of change and continuity in parenting and socialization goals of smaller immigrant groups. Regarding the Mongolian parents in Germany, the results of the present study imply changes in socialization goals and parenting behaviors as a reaction to living in a new host culture with differing values. However, the results of the present study also support the assumption that certain behaviors remain stable and do not change with the experience of immigration. In particular, immigrant parents’ perceptions of the importance of certain socialization goals changed toward their new cultural context while their actual parenting behavior was more comparable with the behavior of parents in their culture of origin. These findings are comparable with findings of larger immigrant groups (i.e., Turkish immigrants) in Germany (Citlak et al., 2008). Thus, this study further supports the notion that culture and migration are central variables that affect child rearing.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Hessian initiative for the development of scientific and economic excellence (LOEWE).

References

Albert

Trommsdorff

Mishra

(2007). Parenting and adolescent attachment in India and Germany. In Zheng

Leung

Adair

(Eds.), Perspectives and progress in contemporary cross-cultural psychology (Selected papers from the Seventeenth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology) (pp. 97-108). Beijing: China Light Industry Press.

Arnett

J. J.

(2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774-783.

Baabar

(1996). XX Zuuny Mongol. Nüüdel Suudal. Garz olz [20^th Century Mongolia. Nomadic and settled. Loss and gain]. Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung. (2009). Ungenutzte Potentiale. Zur Lage der Integration in Deutschland [Unused potentials. About the state of integration in Germany]. Berlin, Germany: Author.

Carra

Lavelli

Keller

Kärtner

(2013). Parenting infants: Socialization goals and behaviors of Italian mothers and immigrant mothers from West Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1304-1320.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2014). World fact book. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

Chao

R. K.

(2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.

Chao

R. K.

(2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.

Chao

R. K.

Tseng

(2002). Parenting of Asians. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (pp. 59-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Citlak

Leyendecker

Schölmerich

Driessen

Harwood

R. L.

(2008). Socialization goals among first- and second-generation migrant Turkish and German mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 56-65.

11.

Cohen

A. B.

Hill

P. C.

(2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of Personality, 75, 709-742.

12.

Frick

P. J.

(1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

13.

Greenfield

P. M.

Suzuki

L. K.

(1998). Culture and human development: Implications for parenting, education, pediatrics, and mental health. In Sigel

I. E.

Renninger

K. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (pp. 1059-1109). New York, NY: John Wiley.

14.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(1996). Parents’ cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences. New York, NY: Guilford.

15.

Hofstede-Centre. (2014). What about Germany? Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/germany.html

16.

IfD. (2006). Einstellungen zur Erziehung. Kurzbericht zu einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage im Frühjahr 2006 [Attitudes towards child rearing. Brief report of a representative survey in the spring of 2006]. Retrieved from http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/uploads/tx_studies/7053_Erziehung.pdf

17.

Inglehart

Basañez

Moreno

(1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Political, religious, sexual, and economic norms in 43 societies: Findings from the 1990-1993 World Survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

18.

Kagitcibasi

(1996). The autonomous-relational self. European Psychologist, 1, 180-186.

19.

Kagitcibasi

(2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422.

20.

Keller

(2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited: Cultural manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 12-18.

21.

Keller

Borke

Lamm

Lohaus

Yovsi

R. D.

(2010). Developing patterns of parenting in two cultural communities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 233-245.

22.

Keller

Borke

Yovsi

Lohaus

Jensen

(2005). Cultural orientations and historical changes as predictors of parenting behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 229-237.

23.

Keller

Lamm

Abels

Yovsi

Borke

Jensen

. . .Chaudhary

(2006). Cultural models, socialization goals and parenting ethnotheories. A multicultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 155-172.

24.

Kohrt

H. E.

Kohrt

B. A.

Waldman

Saltzman

Carrion

V. G.

(2004). An ecological-transactional model of significant risk factors for child psychopathology in outer Mongolia. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 35, 163-181.

25.

Oyunbileg

Sumberzul

Udval

Wang

J. D.

Janes

C. R.

(2009). Prevalence and risk factors of domestic violence among Mongolian women. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 1873-1880.

26.

Reichle

Franiek

(2009). Erziehungsstil aus Elternsicht. Deutsche erweiterte Version des Alabama Parenting Questionnaire für Grundschulkinder (DEAPQ-EL-GS) [Self-reported parenting style—German extended version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire for Elementary School Age Children (GEAPQ-P-ES)]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41, 12-25.

27.

Stark

R. T.

(2009). Does god matter? Religion in individualistic and collectivistic personalities. School of Professional Psychology, 65, 1-38.

28.

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2012). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Ausländische Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse des Ausländerzentralregisters [Population and employment statistics. Foreign population. Results of the central register for foreigners]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.

29.

Uslucan

H.-H.

(2010). Erziehungsstile und Integrationsorientierungen türkischer Familien [Parenting styles and orientations towards integration of Turkish families]. In Andresen

(Ed.), Kindheit und Jugend in muslimischen Lebenswelten: Aufwachsen und Bildung in deutscher und internationaler Perspektive [Childhood and adolescence in Muslim environments: Growing up and education in a German and international perspective] (pp. 195-210). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

30.

Robinson

C. C.

Yang

Hart

C. H.

Olsen

S. F.

Porter

C. L.

. . .Wu

(2002). Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 481-491.