A Comparative Study on Parenting of Preschool Children Between the Chinese in China and Chinese Immigrants in the United States

Abstract

The goal of this questionnaire-based study was to compare the relative endorsement of specific parenting patterns among two ethnic Chinese groups rearing preschool children: Chinese parents in China (N = 117) and first-generation Chinese immigrant parents in the United States (N = 94). A significant interaction effect was found between country and gender on the nonreasoning/punitive dimension of authoritarian parenting, revealing that Chinese fathers endorsed this pattern more strongly than both Chinese immigrant fathers and Chinese mothers. There was also a significant interaction effect between country and gender on the practice of shaming/love withdrawal, indicating that Chinese fathers espoused this pattern more strongly than Chinese immigrant fathers and Chinese mothers, but Chinese immigrant mothers endorsed it more strongly than Chinese immigrant fathers. Furthermore, it was revealed that Chinese immigrants endorsed beliefs about maternal involvement more strongly than their Chinese counterparts. The results are discussed in the context of cultural and contextual influences.

Keywords

authoritarian parenting authoritative parenting Chinese culture Chinese immigrants Chinese parents parenting practices shaming/love withdrawal nonreasoning/punitive maternal involvement

Introduction

The manner in which a parent rears his or her child has long been a subject of empirical inquiry. Particularly, during the past half-century, researchers have made substantial strides in advancing our understanding of parenting, a human endeavor that persists across all cultures. The surge of interest in this area has been, in part, spurred by Baumrind’s (1966) landmark theorization of parenting as primarily reflecting three global typologies differentiable by the level of parental control and emotional responsiveness: (a) authoritarian (high on parental control, but low on emotional responsiveness); (b) authoritative (just the right amount of parental control and reasonably high levels of emotional responsiveness); and (c) permissive (low on parental control, but high on emotional responsiveness). These conceptualizations have subsequently formed the theoretical basis for much of the parenting research in North America and other parts of the world, but its applicability to interpreting the parenting styles and practices of other cultural groups has been challenged.

Specifically, earlier research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that authoritative parenting predicts positive outcomes (e.g., social–emotional competence, behavioral adjustment, academic achievement) among European American students, but authoritarian parenting, commonly associated with low academic performance among European American students, was linked paradoxically to high academic achievement among their Asian counterparts (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Dornbusch, Ritter, Liederman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989). Chao (1994) reconciled this paradox by propounding an ethnotheory of authoritarian parenting among the Chinese as embodying positive indigenous attributes associated with the concept of guan (described as involving parental governance and control but imbued with care, love, and concern for the child). This perspective bolsters the need to consider culturally meaningful conceptions and include indigenous ideologies in investigations on Chinese parenting. Our study addressed this imperative by comparing the relative endorsement of parenting patterns derived from North America and those emphasized in China between two samples of ethnic Chinese parents rearing preschool children: the Chinese in mainland China and first-generation Chinese immigrants in the United States. To utilize more concise terminologies, thereafter, “Chinese” refer to the parents in mainland China, and “Chinese immigrants” denote first-generation immigrant parents (from mainland China) residing in the United States.

Parenting Among the Chinese in China

China has been progressively and rapidly changing, attributable to drastic social transformations during the past few decades (e.g., market reform, education, family structure), all of which have seemingly led to sociocultural changes including diminished gender differentiations in parenting (Chang, Chen, & Ji, 2011). Additionally, the implementation of the “one-child policy” in China from 1979 to 2015 has not only been an integral aspect of the Chinese society but also provided a social framework for guiding child socialization goals and child-rearing practices notably in urban areas of China. For instance, research evidence reveals that Chinese parents have become less authoritarian and restrictive in socializing their children, endorsing most strongly Western-based values, such as independence and self-confidence, and least strongly Chinese traditionally desirable child qualities, especially obedience (e.g., Chang et al., 2011; Lu & Chang, 2013). Lu and Chang (2013) found that the contemporary parenting style of both fathers and mothers of only children in urban China was predominantly authoritative, characterized by parenting strategies and beliefs oriented toward child-centeredness, egalitarianism, and warmth, rather than parental control. Furthermore, these parents were concerned with prosocial assertiveness rather than behavioral constraint and modesty. Lu and Chang (2013) interpreted these findings as reflecting a change in Chinese parenting beliefs toward becoming more similar to those of their Western counterparts.

Despite unprecedented socioecological changes in urban China that seemingly encourage the adoption of Westernized authoritative practices in contemporary Chinese parenting, other research evidence has suggested that certain traditional cultural values still prevail (e.g., X. Chen et al., 2000; Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005). For instance, Wu et al. (2002) found that compared with their U.S. counterparts, relatively well-educated Chinese mothers of preschool-age children in Beijing (the capital of China and the second largest Chinese city) rated higher on Chinese parenting practices of encouragement of modesty, protection, directiveness, shaming/love withdrawal; however, in terms of the North America–derived parenting stylistic dimensions, Chinese mothers rated lower on warmth/acceptance and democratic participation and higher on physical coercion. Furthermore, in their study of 97 Chinese mothers rearing children between the ages of 6 and 30 months in Shanghai (the largest city in China), Xu et al. (2005) found a positive relationship between the mothers’ years of education and authoritative parenting, indicating that the more education the mothers received, the more strongly they endorsed authoritative parenting. Xu et al. (2005) explained this finding as possibly reflecting the fact that raising only one young child, well-educated Chinese mothers may be more likely to engage in a child-rearing approach that embraces flexibility and reasoning as in authoritative parenting rather than parental control and restrictive discipline as in authoritarian parenting. However, given that previous research (e.g., Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005) included solely mothers, it is unclear what parenting styles and practices the fathers would espouse and whether there would be gender differences in parenting between Chinese fathers and mothers. Our research sought to address this research gap by comparing paternal and maternal parenting between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants.

Parenting Among Chinese Immigrants in the United States

Parenting is a complex human endeavor. It is even more complex for those immigrant parents juggling two different, and sometimes conflicting, sets of parenting cognitions and beliefs concerning child rearing between their heritage and host cultures. When immigrating from one culture to another, the parents bring along their implicit child-rearing ideologies, goals, and expectations from their native culture, which serve as the guiding mechanisms underlying their explicit parenting practices (Bornstein & Bohr, 2011). Meanwhile, contextual, postimmigration circumstances may necessitate acculturative changes in these immigrant parents’ child-rearing views and practices. For instance, Cheah, Leung, and Zhou (2013) found that Chinese immigrant mothers espoused aspects of both Chinese and U.S. parenting, by encouraging their child’s maintenance of the Chinese cultural values of relatedness and familism, while supporting his or her development of Western characteristics of autonomy and individuality. Furthermore, postimmigration contextual circumstances may alter parenting dynamics between fathers and mothers. For instance, when their husbands are the sole breadwinners of the family, Chinese immigrant mothers become the primary caregivers of and disciplinarians to their children (J. J.-L. Chen, Chen, & Zheng, 2012). On the contrary, the strong breadwinner role among Chinese immigrant fathers may lead them to become markedly less available in enacting their traditionally prescribed paternal responsibilities with child rearing.

Parenting Between the Chinese and Chinese Immigrants

Given their shared culture of origin, the Chinese and Chinese immigrants may show similarities in some child-rearing practices. However, due to variations in their later sociocultural experiences, the Chinese and Chinese immigrants may diverge in some other child-rearing practices. Yet, except for a few studies (e.g., Chuang & Su, 2009; Lin & Fu, 1990), scant efforts have been devoted to comparing parenting practices between the Chinese and their compatriots who have immigrated to a different cultural context. Lin and Fu’s (1990) study centering on parenting of primary school children among the Chinese in Taiwan and Chinese immigrants from Taiwan revealed that Chinese mothers rated higher than Chinese immigrant mothers on parental control and encouragement of independence, but there was no significant difference in ratings of these parenting practices between their husbands. However, comparisons of parenting preschool children between the Chinese in China and Chinese immigrants from China have remained a terrain largely uncharted. By comparing the parenting practices of rearing preschoolers among Chinese mothers and fathers in China and those in the United States, our study endeavored to contribute cross-cultural knowledge to the literature on parenting.

Chinese Parenting Between Fathers and Mothers

Fathers and mothers in the Chinese culture have traditionally assumed differential parental roles in their children’s lives. Traditionally, the Chinese father is considered yi jia zhi zhu (“master of the family”; Chuang & Su, 2009, p. 332), who maintains social order within the family unit and exercises authority by ways, such as enacting disciplinary responsibilities and decision making concerning child socialization, whereas the Chinese mother shoulders the social and affective role as a domestic care provider and nurturant who manages the household affairs according to her husband’s directions (Deutsch, 2006; Ho, 1986). However, intragroup comparisons of parenting between Chinese mothers and fathers in China have revealed mixed results (e.g., Chang et al., 2011; X. Chen, Wu, Chen, Wang, & Cen, 2001). For instance, while Chen et al. (2001) reported that Chinese mothers exhibited higher levels of warmth and guidance than Chinese fathers in parenting their 4-year-old children, Chang et al. (2011) found that attributions and attitudes related to parenting did not differ significantly between Chinese mothers and fathers of primary school children (averaging 8.35 years in age). Differences in previous findings concerning paternal and maternal parenting may be confounded by various factors, notably the age of the children (i.e., preschool children vs. primary school children). It may be that gender differences in parenting practices between Chinese mothers and fathers are more pronounced when their children are younger. By this conjecture, in our study, we expected to uncover gender differences in parenting of preschoolers between Chinese fathers and mothers.

With respect to Chinese immigrants, except for a few studies (e.g., Chao & Kim, 2000; Chuang & Su, 2009; Lin & Fu, 1990), scant research has compared parenting practices between fathers and mothers. Although finding no significant gender differences on authoritative and authoritative parenting styles, or on any of the school involvement types between Chinese immigrant fathers and mothers of primary school children in the United States, Chao and Kim (2000) did report that (a) the longer the mothers had been residing in the United States, the higher the level of concordance between fathers and mothers on certain constructs of parenting (training and structural parental involvement in school) and (b) the higher the level of education attained by fathers and mothers, the lower the level of their agreement on parenting. Such evidence attests to the imperative of including length of residence and parental education in investigations on parenting between Chinese immigrant fathers and mothers.

The Importance of Studying Chinese Parenting of Preschoolers

Our research on parenting of preschoolers is significant, particularly, because early childhood is viewed as a critical period characterized by rapid child development, and thus presents itself as an ideal time for examining how parents socialize and interact with their young children (Olson, Kashiwagi, & Crystal, 2001). Specifically, in the Chinese society, it is expected that parents start training their children at an early age, especially around the ages of 4 to 6 years, when understanding is considered to be developing (Ho, 1986). As child-rearing ideologies are rooted in sociocultural experience (Harkness & Super, 2002), drastic social transformations in contemporary China and postimmigration changes in family dynamics pose significant contexts for comparing the extent to which the Chinese and Chinese immigrants may endorse Western-derived and Chinese-emphasized parenting patterns in rearing their preschool children.

Conceptual Differences Between Parenting Styles and Parenting Practices

Although various definitions of parenting style have been advanced (e.g., Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Mize & Pettit, 1997), they seemingly converge on the idea that it encompasses a constellation of parental attitudes and beliefs concerning child rearing, rendering an emotional tone within which the parent–child interactive dynamic is shaped and parenting behaviors articulated across an array of situations. Whereas parenting style is domain general, parenting practices are domain specific and culturally situated, operationalized as those intended to achieve particular goals, such as helping children develop social or academic competence (Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998; Mize, Russell, & Pettit, 1998; Wu et al., 2002).

Situated within the broader framework of culture, this empirical study explored the extent to which endorsements of certain parenting patterns may be similar or different between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants. In this study, the Chinese culture refers to the one that is rooted in Confucianism. Traditionally, Chinese parenting is intricately predicated on Confucian principles concerning parent–child dynamics, characterized by a reciprocal interaction between the child who is expected to demonstrate filial piety (e.g., reverence and obedience toward his or her parents), and the parents who are responsible for disciplining and teaching their child to ensure that he or she achieves optimal outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, proper behavior; Yao, 1985). There is a variety of methods through which Chinese parents socialize their children to achieve culturally desirable virtues. In this study, we examined specifically five culturally derived and empirically tested socialization practices (encouragement of modesty, protection, directiveness, shaming/love withdrawal, and maternal involvement; Wu et al., 2002).

Encouragement of Modesty

Confucian philosophy advocated strongly for exercising modesty, a moral virtue that has been transmitted as one of the greatest in the Chinese culture. This virtue is also epitomized by the indigenous idiom, qian shou yi, man zhao sun, which literally conveys that “modesty receives benefits, and haughtiness invites ruin.” Thus, it is not uncommon to find Chinese parents encouraging modesty by teaching their children to respond in a modest way when praised, and restrain from displaying their talents (Kim, Chiu, Peng, Cai, & Tov, 2010).

Parental Protection and Directiveness

In the Chinese cultural belief system concerning child rearing, protection and directiveness are both prescribed as fundamental responsibilities of the parents. A Chinese parent is purported to serve as the protector, who provides a safe and appropriate environment for his or her child, as well as fosters in the child reliance on parental guidance for meeting his or her needs (Wu et al., 2002). A Chinese parent is also expected to direct and correct the child’s behavior (Lin & Fu, 1990), especially since young children are viewed as lacking adequate understanding and capacity to regulate their own behavior (Ho & Kang, 1984).

Shaming/Love Withdrawal

One of the dominant means through which Chinese parents ensure that their children achieve culturally desirable virtues is shaming/love withdrawal. Serving seemingly as a moral compass, this affective method aims at inculcating in the child a sensitivity to shame and an awareness of other people’s views of them, so that the child may be motivated to behave properly according to social norms and expectations in order to avert incurring negative repercussions (Fung, 1999). Concomitant with shaming, there is love withdrawal (including the threat of withdrawal and actual withdrawal of love), and together, shaming and love withdrawal have been found to be more strongly espoused as a parenting strategy by Chinese mothers than by their North American counterparts (Ho, 1986; Tseng & Wu, 1985).

Maternal Involvement

In the Chinese culture premised on Confucian ideology, beliefs about maternal involvement largely characterize the role of the mothers in child rearing. Historically, the Chinese mother is expected to be wholeheartedly devoted to meeting their children’s needs, especially during the early years of their lives (Chao, 1994; Wu et al., 2002). Gender differentiations of parental roles also speak to the cultural significance of maternal involvement. The Chinese father is portrayed as stern, authoritarian, and demanding, whereas the mother is depicted as nurturing, compassionate, and supportive (Ho, 1987). This sentimental gender distinction is also aptly expressed in the Chinese adage of yan fu ci mu, which means “strict fathers, kind mothers.” A kind mother is also perceived to be the one who is highly involved in her children’s lives.

The Goal of the Study

As research comparing parenting patterns between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants rearing preschool children is scarce, we endeavored to contribute knowledge to the literature by addressing this overarching research question: “Do the degrees of endorsement of certain parenting stylistic dimensions derived from North America and parenting practices emphasized in China vary by country (the Chinese in China vs. Chinese immigrants in the United States) and gender (fathers vs. mothers) after controlling for specific sociodemographic variables?” On the basis of the findings from previous research, we hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect between country and gender on certain parenting patterns.

Method

Participants

The participants comprised two samples of ethnic Chinese parents of preschool children ages between 3 and 6 years. Sample 1 consisted of 117 parents (36 fathers and 81 mothers) recruited from two private preschools in Guangzhou, China. Sample 2 included 94 parents (13 fathers and 81 mothers) recruited from three (either federally or city) funded preschools serving mostly Chinese children from low-income families in an ethnic Chinese community in New York City in the United States. Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the two samples. As shown, most Chinese fathers (78%) and mothers (74%) possessed at least a college degree, whereas less than 10% of the Chinese immigrant fathers and mothers did. The difference in the attainment of a college education between the two samples was statistically significant, χ²(1, N = 210) = 89.54, p < .001. Another noticeable difference was that the Chinese were rearing mostly only children (94%), whereas only 23% of the Chinese immigrants were. The difference was statistically significant, χ²(1, N = 210) = 112.68, p < .001.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Chinese (N = 117) and Chinese Immigrants (N = 94).

Sociodemographic characteristic	Chinese	Chinese immigrants
Age (years)
Mother, M (SD)	35.80 (6.45)	34.45 (5.19)
Father, M (SD)	33.64 (5.30)	33.46 (6.00)
Child, M (SD)	3.73 (0.82)	3.93 (0.50)
Child gender
Male	54 (47%)	41 (46%)
Female	62 (53%)	48 (54%)
Child’s birth place
U.S.	N/A	3%
China	100%	97%
Number of children in the family
One	110 (94%)	21 (23%)
More than one	7 (6%)	72 (77%)
Mother’s educational level
Below high school	1 (1%)	46 (58%)
High school	20 (25%)	26 (33%)
College and above	60 (74%)	8 (9%)
Father’s educational level
Below high school	1 (3%)	7 (54%)
High school	7 (19%)	5 (38%)
College and above	28 (78%)	1 (8%)
Marital status
Married	114 (99%)	86 (92%)
Divorced	1 (1%)	7 (8%)
Family’s place of origin
Urban China	117 (100%)	49 (52%)
Rural China	0	45 (48%)
Length of residence in the U.S. (years), M (SD)	N/A	9.6 (4.92); range = 1.5-25
Family’s socioeconomic status	Middle class	Working class

Note. Not all participants provided a response to every sociodemographic question.

As Table 1 also shows, the Chinese immigrants had been residing in the United States for 1.5 to 25 years, averaging 9.6 years (SD = 4.92). Despite their relatively long duration in the United States, considering that they were from working-class backgrounds and that their lives were intimately connected to a Chinese ethnic enclave where they were residing, working, and socializing, and where their children were attending preschool, we conjectured that these Chinese immigrants probably did not have the opportunity to fully acculturate.

Selection of Participants and Procedure

Given rapid social transformations and presumed modernization in urban China, and massive immigration to gateway cities in the United States, we were interested in comparing parenting of preschoolers between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants in large cities. Hence, Guangzhou and New York City, respectively, were selected. New York City was particularly ideal for studying Chinese immigrants, as it had long been a gateway for this population. After identifying the two cities, we proceeded with selecting preschools on the basis of professional recommendations. An additional criterion for choosing Chinese immigrants was that they must be first-generation immigrants from mainland China to make our two samples comparable in terms of country of origin.

The parents from their respective countries were recruited during the time when they were either dropping their children off at or picking them up from school, a task that was seemingly shouldered primarily by the mothers, as demonstrated by the gender distribution of the participants being mostly mothers (see Table 1). Written, signed consent was secured from all of the participants in the United States, while only oral consent was obtained from those in China, in accordance to its acceptable practice that written consent was not necessary. Nonetheless, assurance of confidentiality of information and of the voluntary nature of their participation was orally articulated to the Chinese parents.

The participating parents individually completed three self-report questionnaires in Chinese: (a) sociodemographic questionnaire, providing background information, such as the child’s age, gender, parent’s education, marital status, and number of children in the family; (b) Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001), and (c) Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Wu et al., 2002).

Measures

Parenting Styles and Dimensions Derived From North America

We tested the same constructs (i.e., authoritative and authoritarian styles and dimensions, and parenting practices) as did Wu et al. (2002). However, unlike Wu et al. (2002) who compared parenting of preschoolers between mothers in China and their Caucasian American counterparts in the United States, we investigated both paternal and maternal parenting between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants rearing preschool children. We too excluded the permissive parenting style and its stylistic dimensions in our study because they have been reported to be unreliable and inappropriate with Chinese samples (e.g., X. Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; McBride-Chang & Chang, 1998). In so doing, we would make our results comparable with those of previous research (e.g., Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005).

We assessed parenting styles using the modified 26-item PSDQ developed by Robinson et al. (2001). This instrument is an appropriate measure of parenting among parents of preschool and school-age children (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995), exhibits internal consistency reliability for a sample of parents rearing preschool children in the United States (Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005), and is a reliable and valid measure of parenting styles for parents in China (Fu et al., 2013). Authoritative parenting comprises three dimensions: (a) Warmth/Acceptance (seven items; e.g., “Expresses affection by hugging, kissing, and holding child”), (b) Reasoning/Induction (four items; e.g., “Talks it over and reasons with child when misbehaving”), and (c) Democratic Participation (four items; e.g., “Allows child to give input into family rules”; Wu et al., 2002, p. 485). The authoritarian parenting style consists of three dimensions: (a) Physical Coercion (five items; e.g., “Uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining child”), (b) Verbal Hostility (three items; e.g., “Argues with child”), and (c) Nonreasoning/Punitive (three items; e.g., “Punishes by taking privileges away with little explanation”; Wu et al., 2002, p. 485). The parents rated the frequency in which they perceived themselves exhibiting each specified parenting behavior on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with the higher the score, the more frequently they engaged in this behavior. Moderately high internal consistency for all of these parenting stylistic measures was similarly established for both the Chinese and Chinese immigrant groups, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .59 to .72.

Parenting Practices Emphasized in China

We also adopted the same 18-item measure of five parenting practices emphasized in China by Wu et al. (2002, p. 485): (a) Encouragement of Modesty (four items; e.g., “Discourages child from showing off his/her skills”), (b) Protection (three items; e.g., “Expects child to be close by when playing”), (c) Directiveness (three items; e.g., “Tells child what to do”), (d) Shaming/Love Withdrawal (four items; e.g., “Tells child that he/she should be ashamed when misbehaving”), and (e) Beliefs about maternal involvement derived from Chao’s (1994) questionnaire (four items; e.g., “A mother’s sole interest is in taking care of her children”). These parenting practices are appropriate for our study because they have been found to be comparable across the Chinese and U.S. cultures, although they are likely to emanate from distinct underlying socialization goals (Wu et al., 2002). In the same manner as responding to the PSDQ, the parents rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored by scores from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with the higher the score, the more strongly they endorsed this practice. Moderately high internal consistency for all of these parenting practices was established similarly for both the Chinese and Chinese immigrant groups, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .52 to .67.

Data Analysis

In addition to parenting variables, since two of the sociodemographic variables (Education of the parents and Number of Children in the family) were significantly different between the two samples, they were subsequently incorporated in the primary analyses. Furthermore, serving potentially as a significant factor affecting parenting among Chinese immigrants, Length of Residence (the number of years that Chinese immigrants have been living in the United States) was also included as a variable in the analyses.

We performed two separate sets of 2 (Country: the Chinese in China or Chinese immigrants in the United States) × 2 (Gender: father or mother) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to examine each group of parenting patterns as dependent variables, with Country and Gender as independent between-subjects factors, and Education, Number of Children, and Length of Residence as covariates. If the overall MANCOVA test was significant, we would then conduct a post hoc univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to determine which specific dependent, parenting variable(s) contributed to the significant overall effect. To pinpoint where the effect was significant, we would perform a test of simple main effects using the independent t tests from which to examine the difference in mean scores for that specific variable(s) separately between Country at each Gender level and between Gender at each Country level.

Results

To obtain a general sense of the data, we provided the means and standard deviations of scores for all parenting variables by Country and Gender in Table 2, and the intercorrelations among all dependent variables and covariates separately for the two samples in Table 3.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of the Scores for the Parenting Variables by Country and Gender.

Dependent variable	Chinese (N = 117), M (SD)			Chinese immigrants (N = 94), M (SD)
Dependent variable	Father (N = 36)	Mother (N = 81)	Both	Father (N = 13)	Mother (N = 81)	Both
Derived from North America
Authoritative
1. Warmth/Acceptance	3.79 (0.51)	3.97 (0.49)	3.91 (0.50)	3.45 (0.68)	3.59 (0.82)	3.57 (0.80)
2. Reasoning/Induction	3.94 (0.59)	3.89 (0.73)	3.90 (0.69)	3.54 (0.82)	3.47 (0.94)	3.48 (0.92)
3. Democratic Participation	3.66 (0.60)	3.90 (0.69)	3.82 (0.67)	3.13 (0.74)	4.48 (1.86)	4.29 (1.81)
Authoritarian
1. Physical Coercion	1.96 (0.58)	1.94 (0.45)	1.94 (0.49)	1.86 (0.64)	1.82 (0.51)	1.83 (0.53)
2. Verbal Hostility	2.02 (0.62)	1.94 (0.60)	1.96 (0.61)	1.59 (0.43)	3.09 (1.01)	2.88 (1.08)
3. Nonreasoning/Punitive	2.53 (0.61)	2.12 (0.69)	2.25 (0.69)	1.92 (0.82)	2.36 (0.88)	2.30 (0.88)
Emphasized in China
Parenting practices
1. Encouragement of Modesty	2.54 (0.71)	2.38 (0.83)	2.43 (0.80)	2.34 (0.86)	2.28 (0.91)	2.29 (0.90)
2. Protection	3.31 (0.83)	3.15 (0.67)	3.20 (0.72)	3.26 (0.68)	3.42 (0.85)	3.40 (0.83)
3. Directiveness	2.96 (0.56)	2.89 (0.56)	2.91 (0.55)	2.41 (0.71)	2.70 (0.67)	2.66 (0.68)
4. Shaming/Love Withdrawal	2.25 (0.56)	1.91 (0.68)	2.02 (0.66)	1.46 (0.48)	1.87 (0.60)	1.82 (0.60)
5. Maternal Involvement	2.98 (0.81)	2.79 (0.73)	2.85 (0.76)	3.85 (0.49)	3.97 (0.72)	3.96 (0.69)

Note. The bolded number indicates the highest score for that particular parenting variable.

Table 3.

Intercorrelations Among Dependent Variables and Covariates for the Chinese (N = 117) and Chinese Immigrants (N = 94).

	1E	2C	3R	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Education (1E)	1
Number of Children (2C)		1
Length of Residence (3R)			1
The Chinese
Authoritative
1. Warmth/Acceptance	.29**	−.15		1
2. Reasoning/Induction	.31***	−.08		.43***	1
3. Democratic Participation	.34***	−.11		.64***	.53***	1
Authoritarian
4. Physical Coercion	−.14	−.03		−.22*	−.30***	−.21*	1
5. Verbal Hostility	.02	−.06		−18*	−.22*	−.01	.56***	1
6. Nonreasoning/Punitive	.05	.03		−.13	−.01	−.04	.31***	.31***	1
Parenting Practices
7. Encouragement of Modesty	−.02	−.04		.09	.04	.10	−.05	.13	.28**	1
8. Protection	.01	−.09		.24**	−.01	.20*	.04	.05	−.02	.17	1
9. Directiveness	.02	−.02		.22*	.11	.12	.06	.20*	.16	.14	.14	1
10. Shaming/Love Withdrawal	.19*	.02		−.13	−.04	−.07	.38***	.34***	.40***	.20*	.08	.32***	1
11. Maternal Involvement	.04	.01		.07	.06	.08	−.11	−.10	.15	.06	.26**	.02	.04	1
Chinese Immigrants
Authoritative
1. Warmth/Acceptance	.30**	−.09	.19	1
2. Reasoning/Induction	.08	−.03	.17	.51***	1
3. Democratic Participation	−.03	.04	.11	−.01	−11	1
Authoritarian
4. Physical Coercion	.01	.07	.04	.08	.00	−.18	1
5. Verbal Hostility	−,24**	.06	.05	−.27**	.12	−1.8	.09	1
6. Nonreasoning/Punitive	−.09	−.01	.25	.01	.18	−.02	−.15	.30**	1
Parenting Practices
7. Encouragement of Modesty	−.12	−.13	.26**	−.05	.17	0.15	.17	.02	.27	1
8. Protection	.10	.00	.06	.34***	.32**	.27**	.11	−.18	.09	.07	1
9. Directiveness	.04	−.08	.14	.33***	.33***	.12	.01	.10	.32**	.11	.22*	1
10. Shaming/Love Withdrawal	.02	−.15	.06	.19	.26*	.06	.16	.12	.36***	.20*	.19	.44***	1
11. Maternal Involvement	−.08	.07	−.09	.12	.07	.11	.02	.09	.14	−.02	.19	.08	.08	1

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

MANCOVA Results

Prior to conducting the first set of MANCOVA with the six parenting stylistic dimensions as dependent variables, Country and Gender as independent variables, and Education, Number of Children, and Length of Residence as covariates, we tested whether the assumption of multivariate homogeneity of variance–covariance was met. The Box M test (F = 1.30, p >.05) was not significant, indicating that the two groups (the Chinese and Chinese immigrants) did not differ significantly from each other, and thus the multivariate homogeneity of variance–covariance matrices assumption was met. The overall results from the first set of MANCOVA revealed no significant main effect of Country or Gender, but as hypothesized, there was a significant interaction effect between Country and Gender, λ = 0.94, F(6, 191) = 2.09, p < .05. The follow-up ANCOVA results revealed that, the interaction effect was significant only for Nonreasoning/Punitive, F(1, 196) = 9.14, p < .01, η² = 0.05. The power to detect the interaction effect was 0.85. To locate where the effect was significant, we then examined the results from the analysis of simple main effects based on independent t tests. First, comparisons of the difference in the mean scores of Nonreasoning/Punitive between countries for each gender separately revealed that on average, among the fathers, the scores were significantly higher for the Chinese (M = 2.53, SD = 0.61) than for Chinese immigrants (M = 1.92, SD = 0.82), t(47) = 2.83, p < .01, d = 0.86, but among the mothers, the difference between the Chinese (M = 2.12, SD = 0.69) and Chinese immigrants (M = 2.36, SD = 0.88) was not statistically significant, t(159) = −1.89, p > .05, d = −0.30. Next, comparisons of the difference in mean scores of Nonreasoning/Punitive between genders for each country separately revealed that on average, among Chinese parents, the scores were significantly higher for fathers (M = 2.53, SD = 0.61) than for mothers (M = 2.12, SD = 0.69), t(115) = 3.09, p < .01, d = 0.65, but for the Chinese immigrants, the difference between fathers (M = 1.92, SD = 0.82) and mothers (M = 2.36, SD = 0.88) was not statistically significant, t(91) = −1.67, p > .05, d = −0.52. The interaction effect between Country and Gender on Nonreasoning/Punitive is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Difference in the mean scores of Nonreasoning/Punitive by Country × Gender.

Following the same procedure as the first set of MANCOVA, for the second set of MANCOVA with the five parenting practices as dependent variables, Country and Gender as independent variables, and Education, Number of Children, and Length of Residence as covariates, we first tested whether the assumption of multivariate homogeneity of variance–covariance was met. The Box M test (F = .79, p >.05) was also not significant, indicating that the two groups did not differ significantly from each other, and thus the multivariate homogeneity of variance–covariance matrices assumption was met. The overall results from the second set of MANCOVA revealed a significant main effect but only for Country, λ = 0.87, F(5, 175) = 5.13, p < .001. Corroborating our hypothesis, the results also indicated a significant interaction effect between Country and Gender, 0.93, F(5, 175) = 2.58, p < .05.

The results from the follow-up ANCOVA revealed that, there was a significant main effect of Country but only on: (a) Shaming/love withdrawal, F(1, 179) = 4.46, p < .05, η² = 0.04, indicating that, on average, the scores were significantly higher for the Chinese (M = 2.02, SD = 0.66) than for Chinese immigrants (M = 1.82, SD = 0.60); and (b) Maternal Involvement, F(1, 179) = 20.17, p < .001, η² = 0.11, demonstrating that, on average, the scores were significantly higher for Chinese immigrants (M = 3.96, SD = 0.69) than for the Chinese (M = 2.85, SD = 0.76). The power to detect the main effects was 0.56 and 0.99, respectively.

The follow-up ANCOVA results also revealed that there was a significant interaction effect between Country and Gender, but only on Shaming/Love Withdrawal, F(1, 179) = 10.32, p < .01, η² = 0.06. The power to detect the interaction effect was 0.90. To determine where the effect was significant, we then examined the results from the analysis of simple main effects based on independent t tests. First, comparisons of the difference in the mean scores of Shaming/Love Withdrawal between countries for each gender separately revealed that on average, among the fathers, the scores were significantly higher for the Chinese (M = 2.25, SD = 0.56) than for Chinese immigrants (M = 1.46, SD = 0.48), t(47) = 4.51, p < .001; d = 1.65; however, among the mothers, the difference between the Chinese (M = 1.91, SD = 0.68) and Chinese immigrants (M = 1.87, SD = 0.60) was not statistically significant, t(158) = 0.37, p > .05, d = 0.07. Next, comparisons of the difference in the mean scores of Shaming/Love Withdrawal between genders for each country separately revealed that on average, among the Chinese, the scores were significantly higher for fathers (M = 2.25, SD = 0.56) than for mothers (M = 1.91, SD = 0.68), t(115) = 2.62, p < .01, d = 0.61; however, among Chinese immigrants, the inverse pattern was true, with the scores being significantly higher for mothers (M = 1.87, SD = 0.60) than for fathers (M = 1.46, SD = 0.48), t(90) = 2.37, p < .05, d = 0.85. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect between Country and Gender on Shaming/Love Withdrawal.

Figure 2.

Difference in the mean scores of Shaming/Love Withdrawal by Country × Gender.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative endorsement of specific parenting patterns among the Chinese and Chinese immigrants rearing preschool children. Specifically, we hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect between country and gender on certain parenting patterns. Controlling for the effects of parental education and the number of children in the family for both the Chinese and Chinese immigrants as well as the effect of length of residence in the United States for Chinese immigrants, the results confirmed our hypothesis by revealing that there was indeed an interaction effect between country and gender, but only on two parenting patterns: (a) the nonreasoning/punitive dimension of authoritarian parenting derived from North America and (b) the shaming/love withdrawal practice emphasized in China. A possible explanation for the interaction effect being significant on these two parenting patterns could be that both aimed at achieving similar socialization goals. This interpretation is supported by the finding that both nonreasoning/punitive and shaming/love withdrawal were positively correlated with each other for the Chinese and Chinese immigrants.

The finding, that Chinese fathers endorsed the nonreasoning/punitive and shaming/love withdrawal parenting patterns more strongly than Chinese immigrant fathers and Chinese mothers, did not corroborate those of previous research (e.g., Chang et al., 2011; Lu & Chang, 2013), which suggested that social transformations and modernization have led Chinese parents in urban China to become less authoritarian, restrictive, and controlling in their child-rearing practices, and espouse more strongly Western-based authoritative parenting beliefs and strategies. Despite rapid social transformations and modernization occurring especially in urban China during the past few decades (Chang et al., 2011), our finding seems to confirm that traditionally prescribed paternal role and responsibilities still hold a significant place in contemporary child-rearing practices. This finding may be interpreted further from both the cultural and socialization perspectives.

From a cultural perspective, it is plausible that the Chinese fathers were living up to the traditional expectation of themselves as disciplinarians who would assert paternal authority in training their children early on to achieve culturally sanctioned values founded on Confucian principles, such as obedience and filial piety (Ho, 1986; Yao, 1985). From a socialization perspective, the Chinese fathers’ stronger endorsement of nonreasoning/punitive and shaming/love withdrawal practices may have reflected what Chao (1994) described as the indigenous concept of guan (the application of parental control out of care, love, and concern for the child). These Chinese fathers may have viewed nonreasoning/punitive as a parenting strategy to ensure compliance and proper behavior in their children, possibly motivated by the cultural belief that young children lack sufficient understanding and capacity to regulate their own behavior (Ho & Kang, 1984), and that reasoning may not be effective with them at this young age (F.-M. Chen & Luster, 2002). Similarly, Chinese fathers may have perceived shaming/love withdrawal as a parenting strategy to prevent behavioral deviations from social conformity in their children by helping them develop a sensitivity to shame and an awareness of external evaluations of them (Fung, 1999).

Furthermore, the finding may also be interpreted from the perspective of traditional gender role differentiations between fathers and mothers that reflect Confucian-based Chinese cultural values. It is plausible that the Chinese parents still subscribed to the traditional view of gender roles as expressed in the Chinese adage of yan fu ci mu (“strict fathers, kind mothers”) that forms the culturally constructed depiction of the father as the disciplinarian and the mother as the loving, emotional supporter. It may be that Chinese fathers exerted parental authority because of their cognizance of possible negative social repercussions if they did not fulfill their parental role and responsibilities. In the traditionally Confucian-driven Chinese culture, the child’s conduct is said to bring either honor or shame to the family, a consequence for which the father is held accountable (Yao, 1985). This sentiment is also aptly captured in the Chinese adage, yang bu jiao, fu zhi guo ("rearing without teaching the child, it is the faulty of the father"), a notion that reflects the Confucian ideology about the differing parental roles of mothers and fathers in traditional Chinese culture, with the fathers being held responsible for their children’s outcomes. Considering the immense cultural expectation of the fathers as the moral vanguards of their children’s behaviors, the corollary is that to eschew being judged by others as irresponsible and unresponsive in fulfilling their parental responsibilities (Ho, 1986), Chinese fathers may have resorted to nonreasoning/punitive and shaming/love withdrawal as parenting strategies to ensure optimal child outcomes.

In contrast, the same perspective of traditional gender role differentiations did not seem to apply to Chinese immigrants, as Chinese immigrant mothers actually endorsed shaming/love withdrawal more strongly than Chinese immigrant fathers. Instead, this finding may be explained from a contextual perspective as reflecting possibly postimmigration adjustments in family dynamics including views and practices of parental responsibilities between fathers and mothers. An examination of the data revealed that only 25% of the Chinese immigrant mothers and all of the Chinese immigrant fathers worked full time, which means that the fathers were mostly the single income earners of the family, leading them possibly with little time and energy to exercise their paternal responsibilities. Thus, it is conceivable that due largely to a lack of available time, Chinese immigrant fathers may have relinquished their paternal responsibilities to their spouses including those involving disciplining their children. This finding is also consistent with those of previous research. For instance, J. J.-L. Chen et al. (2012) found that only 4 of the 12 Chinese immigrant mothers of preschoolers worked full time, while the rest were the primary caregivers of and disciplinarians to their children. The Chinese immigrants in our study may have headed a household where the husband was the sole breadwinner and the wife mainly the caretaker of and disciplinarian to their children. In this context, Chinese immigrant mothers may have had more opportunities to apply shaming/love withdrawal as a child disciplinary method. Informal conversations with the Chinese immigrants in this study also supported this interpretation. The same contextual interpretation may also explain the finding that on average, Chinese immigrant mothers endorsed nonreasoning/punitive more strongly than Chinese immigrant fathers, despite the fact that the difference was not statistically significant.

Furthermore, the stronger endorsement of beliefs about maternal involvement among Chinese immigrants than among the Chinese may also be interpreted from a contextual perspective. Specifically, since Chinese fathers endorsed nonreasoning/punitive and shaming/love withdrawal more strongly than Chinese mothers, it is likely that Chinese fathers were already highly involved in their children’s lives, leading them to espouse beliefs about maternal involvement less strongly. Furthermore, the beliefs about maternal involvement which included, “A mother’s sole interest is in taking care of her children” and “children should be in the constant care of their mothers,” may not have been realistic in the case of Chinese families with working mothers. There is a high likelihood that the Chinese mothers in this study were working full time, especially considering that they were mostly well educated, had only one young child, and may have even been receiving child care assistance from their extended family. This interpretation suggests the possibility that with rising maternal participation in the labor force in China, Chinese mothers may not have availed themselves enough time and energy to devote to their only children’s lives and may have instead served as one of multiple child caregivers. Goh (2011) found that in cities of China, while the parents work, it is common for grandparents to care for the only children and attend to house chores. In contrast, as discussed earlier, in this study, since most Chinese immigrant mothers were not working, they may have well been the sole caregivers and active participants in rearing their own children. All of these contextual circumstances individually and collectively, thus, may explain why Chinese immigrants endorsed beliefs about maternal involvement more strongly than their Chinese counterparts.

Considered all, the interaction effect between country and gender found in our study suggests that the degrees of endorsement of certain child-rearing patterns may indeed differ between groups of parents from the same Chinese ethnic origin and between fathers and mothers. This finding affirms the imperative of comparing parenting styles and practices across cultures, adding fathers to the equation in such investigations, and considering sociocultural and contextual mechanisms underlying the application of various parenting patterns. Incorporating these considerations in cross-cultural studies can advance our understanding of the sources as well as implications of the similarities and differences in parenting, especially across groups of parents from the same ethnic origin but residing in different countries.

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

By comparing certain Western-derived and Chinese-emphasized parenting patterns between fathers and mothers among the Chinese and Chinese immigrants rearing preschool children, this study contributed important insights to the parenting literature. However, several limitations of the study should be noted. In general, the generalizability of the research results is constrained by methodological issues. First, similar to other research on this topic (e.g., Chao, 1994; Wu et al., 2002), this study is limited by the employment of a self-report method as the sole source of data. Such methodology is useful for investigating parental perceptions of their own parenting styles and practices. However, self-report information concerning the specific phenomenon under investigation may only be interpreted as perceived rather than actual (J. J.-L. Chen, 2005). Future research employing objective behavioral observations of the child-rearing behaviors of fathers and mothers may document the actual practices in action to complement findings from self-report information. In addition, interviewing parents may yield qualitative insights not captured here. This knowledge can potentially elucidate the parents’ emic perspective of why and how they endorse certain parenting patterns (J. J.-L. Chen et al., 2012).

Second, the schools where the Chinese and Chinese immigrants were recruited for participation were selected through recommendations from professionals, resulting in two convenient rather than randomized samples. Thus, they may not serve as representatives of their respective populations. Third, we recognize that methodologically, the relatively small sample sizes (94 Chinese immigrants with only 14% of them being fathers and 117 mainland Chinese with 31% being fathers) also limited the power of our analyses as well as the confidence with which we could draw and generalize our conclusions and implications.

Fourth, the unique contextual factors characterizing our samples were not meant to be representative of the Chinese populations in China and the United States. For instance, we focused on a relatively less-educated, working-class sample of Chinese immigrants residing, working, and socializing in a Chinese ethnic enclave where their children were also attending a preschool serving low-income, mostly Chinese families. As such, our findings may not be generalizable to Chinese immigrants with dissimilar characteristics, especially those from highly educated and affluent backgrounds. For instance, in contrast to Cheah, Leung, Tahseen, and Schultz’s (2009) study of highly educated Chinese immigrant mothers of preschoolers who strongly endorsed the authoritative parenting style, our Chinese immigrant sample did not show such a pattern. Furthermore, as our Chinese sample came from relatively well-educated, middle-class backgrounds in a large city of China, the findings concerning their parenting styles and practices may not be generalizable to Chinese parents from other regions, especially those from rural areas. To increase the generalizability and validity of the findings reported here, future research needs to involve larger and more socioeconomically diverse samples of Chinese and Chinese immigrant parents from both genders. Studying the parenting patterns among Chinese parents in rural China may also yield additional insights (J. J.-L. Chen & Liu, 2012).

Finally, there is evidence that parenting styles and practices predict children’s psychological outcomes (e.g., Cheah et al., 2009; J. J.-L. Chen & Liu, 2012). As the effects of the parents’ endorsement of certain parenting patterns between the Chinese and Chinese immigrants on their children’s behavioral outcomes were not measured in this study, a logical next step would be to examine possible cross-cultural similarities and differences in these effects.

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 supported by a Foundation Faculty Research Award from Kean University to the first author, and a grant from the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 15CSH052), Project of Teaching Reform Research on Higher Education of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD) to the second author.

References

Baumrind

(1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907.

Baumrind

(1971). Principles of ethical conduct in the treatment of subjects: Reaction to the draft report of the committee on ethical standards in psychological research. American Psychologist, 26, 887-896.

Bornstein

M. H.

Bohr

(2011). Immigration, acculturation and parenting. In Tremblay

R. E.

Boivin

Peters

R. deV.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of early childhood development. Ottawa, Canada: Center of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/en/664/immigration-acculturation-and-parenting.pdf

Chang

Chen

(2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in China. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11, 102-115.

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.

Chao

R. K.

Kim

(2000). Parenting differences among immigrant Chinese fathers and mothers in the United States. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1, 71-91.

Cheah

C. S. L.

Leung

C. Y. Y.

Tahseen

Schultz

(2009). Authoritative parenting among immigrant Chinese mothers of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 311-320.

Cheah

C. S. L.

Leung

C. Y. Y.

Zhou

(2013). Understanding “tiger parenting” through the perceptions of Chinese immigrant mothers: Can Chinese and U.S. parenting coexist? Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 30-40.

Chen

F.-M.

Luster

(2002). Factors related to parenting practices in Taiwan. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 413-430.

10.

Chen

J. J.-L.

(2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to Hong Kong adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131, 77-127.

11.

Chen

J. J.-L.

Chen

Zheng

X. X.

(2012). Parenting styles and practices among Chinese immigrant mothers with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 182, 1-21.

12.

Chen

J. J.-L.

Liu

(2012). The mediating role of perceived parental warmth and parental punishment in the psychological well-being of children in rural China. Social Indicators Research, 107, 483-508.

13.

Chen

Dong

Zhou

(1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873.

14.

Chen

Liu

Cen

Chen

Wang

(2000). Maternal authoritative and authoritarian attitudes and mother–child interactions and relationships in urban China. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 119-126.

15.

Chen

Wang

Cen

(2001). Parenting practices and aggressive behavior in Chinese children. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 159-184.

16.

Chuang

S. S.

(2009). Do we see eye to eye? Chinese mothers’ and fathers’ parenting beliefs and values for toddlers in Canada and China. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 331-341.

17.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

18.

Deutsch

F. M.

(2006). Filial piety, patrilineality, and China’s one-child policy. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 366-389.

19.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Ritter

P. L.

Liederman

Roberts

Fraleigh

(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

20.

Hou

Qin

Meng

Xie

Huang

. . .Li

(2013). Can Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire be used in China? Psychology, 4, 535-540.

21.

Fung

(1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27, 180-209.

22.

Goh

E. C. L.

(2011). China’s one-child policy and multiple caregiving: Raising little suns in Xiamen. New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2002). Culture and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 253-280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Hart

C. H.

Nelson

D. A.

Robinson

C. C.

Olsen

S. F.

McNeilly-Choque

M. K.

(1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.

25.

D. Y. F.

(1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1-37). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

26.

D. Y. F.

(1987). Fatherhood in Chinese culture. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 227-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

D. Y. F.

Kang

T. K.

(1984). Intergenerational comparisons of childrearing attitudes and practice in Hong Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1004-1016.

28.

Kim

Y.-H.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Peng

Cai

Tov

(2010). Explaining East-West differences in the likelihood of making favorable self-evaluations: The role of evaluation apprehension and directness of expression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 62-75.

29.

Lin

C. C.

V. R.

(1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 61, 429-433.

30.

H. J.

Chang

(2013). Parenting and child socialization of only children in urban China: An example of authoritative parenting. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174, 335-343.

31.

McBride-Chang

Chang

(1998). Adolescent–parent relations in Hong Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 421-436.

32.

Mize

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style, and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 28, 139-147.

33.

Mize

Russell

Pettit

G. S.

(1998). Further explorations of family-peer connections: The role of parenting practices and parenting style in children’s development of social competence. In Slee

P. T.

Rigby

(Eds.), Children’s peer relations (pp. 31-44). New York, NY: Routledge.

34.

Olson

S. L.

Kashiwagi

Crystal

(2001). Concepts of adaptive and maladaptive child behavior: A comparison of U.S. and Japanese mothers of preschool-age children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 43-57.

35.

Robinson

C. C.

Mandleco

Olsen

S. F.

Hart

C. H.

(1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819-830.

36.

Robinson

C. C.

Mandleco

Olsen

S. F.

Hart

C. H.

(2001). The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire. In Perlmutter

B. F.

Touliatos

Holden

G. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. 3. Instruments and index (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Steinberg

Elmen

J. D.

Mounts

N. S.

(1989). Authoritative parenting, psychological maturity and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.

38.

Tseng

W. S.

D. Y. H.

(1985). Introduction: The characteristics of Chinese culture. In Tseng

W. S.

D. Y. H.

(Eds.), Chinese cultural and mental health (pp. 3-13). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

39.

Winsler

Madigan

A. L.

Aquilino

S. A.

(2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 1-12.

40.

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.

41.

Farver

J. A. M.

Zhang

Zeng

Cai

(2005). Mainland Chinese parenting styles and parent–child interaction. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 524-531.

42.

Yao

E. L.

(1985). A comparison of family characteristics of Asian-American and Anglo-American high achievers. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 26, 198-207.