Parental Control and Conflicts in Adolescence: A Cross-National Comparison of the United States,Canada,Mexico,France,and Italy

Abstract

This study investigated parental behavioral control, disciplinary style, and parent–youth conflicts in five countries: The United States, Canada, Mexico, France, and Italy. A self-report questionnaire was applied to 1,751 adolescents and their parents. Results indicate that, after controlling for possible confounding variables, parenting in the United States and Canada was characterized by reduced requirements and rules and a disciplinary style marked by induction and negotiation. A higher level of control, and a disciplinary approach more punitive and coercive characterized parents in Mexico and France. Mexican adolescents reported the highest levels of conflict, while the United States stands out with the lowest rate of conflict. Generally, Italy was at a middle position. Regression analyses indicated that harsh parental disciplinary measures are associated with conflicts in all countries. Results are discussed in light of the ethnocultural perspectives developed in cross-cultural psychology.

Keywords

adolescents culture family processes father–child relationship mother–child relationship

The study of the links between family and culture has a long and rich tradition in social sciences and for over a century, many studies seek to capture the differences between cultures and how human development is linked to culture. From the beginning, interest has been focused on culture-related parenting and its impact on development. Miller and Goodnow (1995) have underscored the habitual, ritualized, and automatic nature of parental practices, which are charged with normative values that are largely shared within a given social or cultural group. Universally, every parent’s child-rearing cognitions are shaped by socially constructed ethnotheories, or what Harkness and Super (1996, p. 12) refer to as “cultural common sense.” Cross-cultural comparisons show that virtually all aspects of parenting are informed by culture: Culture influences when and how parents care for children, what parents expect of children, and which behaviors parents appreciate, emphasize, and reward or discourage and punish (Bornstein, 2013).

Recently, several empirical studies have examined the parenting of adolescents across countries and cultures (e.g., Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Darling, Cumsille, & Pena-Alampe, 2005; Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kagitçibasi, & Poortinga, 2006). The relationship between parents and adolescents, and the impact of family background on socioemotional development of adolescents are probably the topics that generated the most intercultural work in the field of development in adolescence (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006).

Behavioral Control

The study of parental control has been central to developmental psychology for over 50 years (Schaefer, 1965). Many efforts have been made to develop parental models that can make connections between parental control and the child development. An important step toward conceptual clarification was made with the introduction of the distinction between behavioral control and psychological control (Barber, 1996; Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). Notably, a growing body of research suggests that the exercise of parental control can take the form of two distinguishable dimensions, and that can have the opposite effects on development. Psychological control refers to intrusive parenting that dictates behaviors and imposes modes of thought (Barber, 1996). This type of control is typically associated with negative outcomes, particularly internalized disorders (Barber et al., 2005; Pinquart, 2017). On the other side, behavioral control aims to regulate behaviors by setting up demands and restrictions (Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003). By exerting this type of control, parents impose regulation structures, by setting rules and boundaries and monitoring behavior outside home. Behavioral control generally facilitates positive outcomes and acts as protection against deviant behaviors (Barber et al., 2005, Pinquart, 2017). Among the many attempts to operationalize the concept of parental behavioral control in adolescence, Kerr and Stattin (2000), after a critical analysis of the studies using the notion of supervision, considers that the concept of behavioral control calls for the presence of family rules and the need to obtain parental authorizations especially for outings with friends. Number of intercultural studies indicate that, among the various parenting practices, parental control is more directly determined by cultural norms and varies considerably across cultures (Kagitçibasi, 2007; Youniss, 1994).

Parental Discipline

Parental behavioral control implies the presence of rules and requirements, but effective control also involves the prescription of consequences in case of noncompliance with agreed rules and limits. Discipline is a central aspect of parenting used to discourage children misbehavior. The choice of disciplinary measures is a crucial in the definition of parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). The construct of parental discipline encompasses a broad range of parental behaviors that Gershoff (2013) classify on a continuum ranging from effective to ineffective measures. Research has shown that some disciplinary techniques, like withdrawal of privileges, or inductive reasoning encourage appropriate child behavior and prevent misbehavior (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Maccoby, 1992). In contrast, other techniques like coercion or harsh physical punishment are seen as counterproductive because they create aggressiveness, feelings of hostility and rejection (Sansbury & Wahler, 1992). Various intercultural studies indicate that the use of harsh discipline and corporal punishment vary widely among cultures (Lansford & Deater-Deckard, 2012; Runyan et al., 2010). Legally banned in some societies, such practices are regarded in other societies as a normative means to teach children socially sanctioned manners as the Egypt, India, Syria, the Philippines, and Mexico.

Conflicts Between Parents and Adolescents

Conflicts are situations of confrontation between people with negative impacts. As Laursen and Collins (1994) point out, more than the frequency of conflict, it is the emotional impact of conflict that must be taken into account when considering the role of family conflict on development. Conflicts between parents and adolescents are inevitable and universal realities considering various developmental variables: affirmation of autonomy, increased cognitive skills, and assertiveness (Smetana, 2011). Although conflict is a normative part of parent–adolescent relationships, conflicts that are recurring or charged with negative or hostile remarks are likely to be detrimental to these relationships and to youths’ development (Moed et al., 2015). Higher levels of parent–adolescent conflicts have been associated with higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems (Branje, van Doorn, van der Valk, & Meeus, 2009; Smetana et al., 2006). Few cross-cultural studies have compared the frequency and intensity of family conflict in different cultures in the world. However, some studies indicate that confrontations between parents and adolescents are more frequent in collectivist cultures (Ember & Ember, 2005).

The Present Study

The movement toward a culturally richer understanding of parenting has resulted in impressive information while raising a series of important questions about parenting. One of these questions concerns the various ways of exercising parental control and his impact on the family climate. The present study considers parental control among adolescents from five countries: The United States, Canada (province of Québec, the French-speaking part of Canada), Mexico, France, and Italy. This study particularly examines two main aspects of parenting behavioral control and disciplinary practices, and how they are related to conflicts. The study examines the perception of the adolescents with regard to maternal and paternal parenting and also how the parents report their parenting on the same dimensions.

The Choice of Countries

The present study compares three countries in North America (Canada, the United States and Mexico) and two countries in Europe (France and Italy). All of these countries have a social and cultural factors found in substantial degrees such as Christian religion and advanced industrialization (Georgas et al., 2006). Despite these commonalities, their values about family and education vary considerably as illustrated in the cultural patterns below drawn from cross-cultural research studies.

The United States

Most studies, indicate that European Americans are more individualistic than other communities, valuing personal independence rather than collectivistic dimensions (Hofstede, 2001; Kitayama, 2002). Ideal cultural norms of European American parenting are marked by a strong emphasis on autonomy and individualization, exclude forms of coercive control, and encourage inductive approaches that emphasize discussion and negotiation (Sophtas-Naland & Sukhodolsky, 2006; Youniss, 1994).

Canada

As the United States, Canadian society largely falls into the category of individualist cultures (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002) and, as such, this country broadly shares the philosophy of parenting in the United States. Canadian parents value individuation and gives heightened importance to the development of initiative and autonomy (Kwak & Berry, 2006; Smetana, 2011). The few studies carried in the province of Québec indicate that parent–adolescent relationships reflect the adoption of a model of family relationships conveyed in North American society (Clermont & Claes, 2008).

Mexico

Historically, Mexican parenting has largely promoted a traditional family model characterized by the affirmation of parental authority and respect for the family hierarchy. Collectivist cultural patterns play a significant role in Mexican parenting engendering a family-oriented approach emphasizing obedience and obligation to family (Solis-Camara, Fung, & Fox, 2014). Mexican families have been reported to impose parental rules, authoritarian, and punitive tendencies when parental rules are broken (Diaz-Loving, 2006; Moral de la Rubia, 2013). Corporal punishment is part of the repertoire of disciplinary methods that can be seen as a practice meant to produce responsible and well-behaved citizens (Solis-Camara et al., 2014).

France

We included parenting between Québec and France because both societies are French speaking, and have a common origin. Most French Canadians are, in fact, descendants of French immigrants. However, both cultures have evolved in very contrasting social and historical contexts. As pointed out by Lannegrand-Willems, Sabatier, and Brisset (2012), in valuing both independence, obedience, and respect for parental authority, French society is positioned between the collectivist and individualistic model of society. Comparing adolescents from France and Canada, Sabatier and Berry (2008) observed a more distant family climate and more authoritarianism in France.

Italy

The choice of Italy is justified by the importance this country tends to grant to family values, as illustrated in numerous empirical studies (Scabini, Marta, & Lanz, 2006). As underscored by Scabini et al. (2006), the Italian family is typically characterized by a high degree of emotional closeness and support from both parents, yet also by set rules and restrictions dictated to children’s as obligations to their family that stem from their dependence on their parents. This lends support to other observations regarding the presence and maintenance of adolescents’ requirements and restrictions within the Italian family, a parenting pattern that leads to an increase in conflict over the years (Lanz, 2000).

Hypotheses

Although this study is exploratory, we formulated broad hypotheses based on the literature cited above.

Hypothesis 1: Parental control. (a) It is expected that the United States and Canada will stand out from other countries with lower levels of parental behavioral control and less severe disciplinary actions in case of noncompliance compared with other countries. (b) It is expected that Mexico and Italy will stand out with higher levels of behavioral control and more severe disciplinary action in case of noncompliance compared with other countries. (c) France will stand between these two extremes.

Hypothesis 2: Conflicts. (a) It is expected that Mexico and Italy will have higher levels of conflict. (b) The United States and Canada will have lower levels conflicts. (c) Again France is somewhere between these two extremes.

Hypothesis 3: In all countries, coercive disciplinary practices will be associated with the presence of more severe conflicts.

Method

Sample

The sample composed of 1,751 adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. A total of 27 schools were approached (6 in Canada, 6 in Italy, 5 in Mexico, 6 in France, and 4 in the United States). In France, Italy, and Canada, we selected adolescents whose both parents were born in the country. In the United States, all participants are White Europeans American. In Mexico, the parents are all Caucasian or “Mestizos.” This is justified by the fact that many studies indicate that within the same country, there are differences in parental control by ethnicity and immigration status of respondents (Cruz-Santiago & Ramírez García, 2011; Peterson, Steinmetz, & Wilson, 2005).

In each country, researchers recruited voluntary public schools from middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds. Parental permission was requested according to the ethical procedures that governed the research of each of the investigators. All students in a selected class participated in the study. Participation was voluntary; however, only a very small number of adolescents refused to participate, less than 2% in each country. After the session, a questionnaire for parents was given to the participants in a sealed envelope. The questions were addressed to parents as a couple, except in the case of single parenthood.

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of youth and parent’s participation in each country taking into account age, gender, marital status of parents, the socioeconomic status (SES) and education level of each parent. Age groups vary significantly between countries, F(4, 1739) = 27.44, p < .001. Participants are younger in the United States and older in Canada. Gender distribution also varies significantly, χ² = 27.25; p < .000. The distribution of boys and girls is similar for Canada, Italy, and Mexico, while there was an overrepresentation of girls in France and the United States. Divorce rate is significantly different between countries, χ² = 307.72, p < .000: very low in Italy, less than 10%, but more than 40% in the United States and Canada. Parents’ SES was calculated using the index developed by Blishen, Carrol, and Moore (1987), which provides a score derived from parents’ occupation and the income commonly associated with it. SES varies significantly between countries, SES mothers: F(4, 1579) = 8.39, p < .000; SES fathers: F(4, 1347) = 6.27; p < .000. For both parents, SES is lower in Italy and Mexico compared with the three other countries. Same figure for the education level, education of fathers: F(4, 1319) = 26.96, p < .000; education of mothers: F(4, 1548) = 69.21, p < .000, low for Italy and Mexico, highest in France and Canada, and particularly high in the United States. All subsequent analyses will control for the potential confounding effects of these variables. The number and parents’ response rate is also presented in Table 1. Mothers responded alone in 63% of cases, fathers alone 11%, and both parents together 26%. Overall, for the entire sample, 65% of parents participated in the research.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

	Canada	Italy	Mexico	France	The United States	Total
N	347	359	377	378	290	1,751
Adolescents
Age
12-13 Years	38%	50%	47%	53%	68%	51%
14-15 Years	62%	49%	53%	46%	31%	49%
Gender
Boys	48%	41%	50%	40%	40%	44%
Girls	52%	59%	50%	60%	60%	56%
Parental marital status
Married	51%	90%	73%	82%	68%	73%
Divorced/separated	49%	10%	27%	18%	32%	27%
Fathers professional status
Low	14%	39%	41%	20%	15%	26%
Middle	52%	44%	44%	48%	50%	48%
High	34%	17%	15%	30%	35%	26%
Mothers professional status
Low	20%	35%	33%	27%	15%	19%
Middle	63%	50%	56%	55%	68%	63%
High	18%	15%	10%	18%	17%	17%
Fathers education
Elementary	19%	32%	29%	14%	3%	20%
High school	39%	50%	50%	55%	45%	48%
College/university	40%	17%	20%	30%	51%	31%
Mothers education
Elementary	14%	39%	27%	12%	4%	33%
High school	47%	44%	45%	62%	45%	41%
College/university	39%	16%	20%	25%	51%	25%
Parents: Number (percentage of adolescents)	159 (46%)	349 (97%)	244 (65%)	288 (76%)	95 (33%)	1,135 (65%)

Instruments

The data are based on a 50 minutes self-report questionnaire answered by groups of adolescents during school hours. Each time, adolescents were asked how they perceived these dimensions in the case of the mother and in the case of the father. The same questions were asked to the parents as a couple to see how they consider their own parental practices and their perception of conflicts. To maximize the content and construct validity of measures across the five countries, the questionnaire was subject to a double translations procedure (Erkut, 2010). This was done collaboratively over the course of several meetings between the partners in each country. All answers to items are organized on a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = not at all/never; 2 = rarely/a little; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often/rather well; 5 = always/totally).To test the cross-cultural validity of the instruments, each of the scales has been subject to a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess whether the same factor structure is found in the five countries.

Behavioral Control

The eight items of this scale are taken from five items developed by Kerr, Stattin, and Trost (1999) plus three items from “parental rule making” of Metzler, Biglan, Ary, and Li, (1998). This scale underwent a previous validation procedures with a sample of Canadian and French adolescents (Claes, Debrosse, Miranda, & Perchec, 2010). The scale is composed of two factors which evaluate the degree of parental control, as measured by adolescents’ need to obtain permissions from their parents (e.g., “I need to have my father’s permission to stay out late on a weekday”) and the presence of family rules (e.g., “My mother wants me to do my schoolwork before going out with friends”). These two subscales being highly correlated for the three sources of information (adolescent/mother: .55; adolescent/father: .68; parents: .65) they were added to form the scale. A high score indicates the presence of high behavioral control. Results of the multigroup CFAs carried out with the five countries indicate that in each case the model fit well the data (Adolescent/mother: confirmatory fit index [CFI] = .96, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .02, α = .78; Adolescent/father: CFI = .93, RMSEA = .03, α = .90; parents: CFI = .98, RMSEA = .02, α = .89. Alphas of subscales: Rules: mother = .69, father = .78, parents = .68; Authorization: mother = .76, father = .89, parents = .82).

Disciplinary Style

The 13 items measuring parental disciplinary actions were derived from two questionnaires (George & Bloom, 1997; Kim & Ge, 2000). This original scale was built and validated by the authors to examine the type of practices used by parents to discourage unwanted behavior and apply consequences when a rule has been broken or a set limit has been breached (Claes, Debrosse, et al., 2010). This scale is composed of three factors: (a) Punishment, involves negative consequences (e.g., my mother punishes me by making me do extra work); (b) Coercion, implicates the use of harsh or aggressive measures (e.g., when I do something very wrong, my father hits me); and (c) Induction, is a positive approach that calls for negotiation and participation (e.g., when I have a poor grade in my report card, my mother tries to understand why). In this study, subscale analyses indicate that punishment and coercion are positively correlated (.53, .51, .48); punishment and induction are negatively correlated (−.17, −.12, −.18); coercion and induction negatively correlated (−.35, −.32, −.24). The items in this last subscale have been recoded, so that a high score indicates a disciplinary style that adopts more severe disciplinary and less positive inductive measures. The results of the multigroup CFAs carried out with the five countries indicates that in each case the model fit well the data.

Adolescent/mother: CFI = .94, RMSEA = .03, α = .74; Adolescent/father: CFI = .95; RMSEA = .03: α = .73; Parents: CFI = .94, RMSEA = .02, α = .72. Alphas of subscales: Punishment: Mother: .63, father: .62, parents: .65; Coercion: Mother: .71, father: .72, parents: .70; Induction: Mother: .73, father: .90, parents: .65).

Conflicts

This scale was built from the instrument developed by Moilanen, Shaw, Criss, and Dishion (2009) which assesses both the presence and severity of conflicts. The four items asses arguments that are minor (we had arguments about little things) and increasing in severity including severe confrontations (we had a severe conflict that really hurt me, made me angry or very sad). A high score indicates the presence of severe conflict. This scale is composed by a single robust factor. The results of the multigroup CFAs carried out with the five countries indicates that in each case the model fit well the data (Adolescent/mother: CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, α = .81; Adolescent/father: CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06: α = .85; Parents: CFI = .98, RMSEA = .01, α = .74).

Results

We first conducted multivariate analyses of covariance to test for mean differences on the three measure parenting by country adjusted for the following covariates: age, gender, parental status (divorced/intact), SES and education level of parent. Indeed, as indicated above, each of these variables gives rise to significant differences between countries. It was therefore necessary to control them to avoid confounding effects. The multivariate analyses of covariance indicate that, after adjusting for the five covariates, there are significant differences by country on the three parenting measures, Mother: F(4, 1463) = 18.69, p < .001; Father: F(4, 1464) = 6.34, p < .001; Parents: F(4, 909) = 7.24, p < .001. We, therefore, performed analyses of covariance on each individual measure to test for differences between countries, using Bonferroni corrections to account for multiple tests.

Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations obtained in each country for the three scales and subscales, F values and the countries effect size and this for the three sources of information: (a) adolescent-reported maternal parenting, (b) adolescent-reported paternal parenting, and (c) parenting perceptions reported by the parents themselves. Analyses revealed that in the case of the perception of the mother, each of the three measure (scales and subscales) leads to highly significant differences between countries. The country effect size is strong. Subsequent pairwise comparison indicates a common pattern for the two maternal control practices: no significant differences between Mexico and France. These two countries had the highest mean scores on behavioral control, and adoption of more punitive or coercive disciplinary action in case of noncompliance with rules. No significant mean differences between the United States and Canada which stand out by a lower level of requirements on the two maternal control measures indicating less behavioral control, and more inductive practices in case of noncompliance. Italy lies between these two positions. The perceived level of conflict with the mother also leads to significant differences between the countries. Mexicans adolescents perceive the highest rate of conflict with the mother. No differences between Canadian, Italian, and French adolescents who report the intermediate rate of conflict. The United States stands out very clearly with the lowest level of conflict between adolescents and their mothers.

Table 2.

Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Scale and Subscales for the Five Countries.

	Canada (n = 292)	Italy (n = 331)	Mexico (n = 316)	France (n = 301)	The United States (n = 244)	Total (N = 1,484)	F	p	Effect size
Perception of the mother by adolescents
Behavioral control	33.24 (7.28)	34.74 (6.44)	37.67 (5.35)	37.02 (5.13)	33.76 (5.38)	35.21 (6.02)	29.41	.000	.068
Rules	17.39 (3.98)	18.64 (3.63)	20.63 (3.11)	19.98 (3.47)	18.25 (3.22)	18.91 (3.63)	30.35	.000	.069
Authorization	15.92 (4.11)	16.11 (3.72)	17.04 (3.15)	18.49 (3.61)	16.49 (3.52)	16.73 (3.38)	26.34	.000	.065
Disciplinary style	19.38 (4.75)	20.81 (5.75)	24.62 (7.95)	23.45 (6.29)	18.76 (4.97)	21.38 (6.45)	36.67	.000	.060
Punishment	5.98 (2.24)	6.16 (2.30)	7.35 (2.94)	6.92 (2.73)	5.86 (2.36)	6.53 (2.59)	22.70	.000	.041
Induction	12.05 (2.51)	11.84 (2.79)	11.20 (2.86)	11.38 (2.34)	11.94 (2.18)	11.41 (2.89)	18.90	.000	.029
Coercion	7.27 (2.48)	7.41 (2.89)	9.24 (3.64)	8.97 (2.13)	6.99 (2.58)	8.33 (3.02)	27.33	.000	.054
Conflicts	6.98 (3.22)	7.06 (3.38)	8.28 (4.19)	7.14 (3.25)	5.60 (3.26)	7.22 (3.57)	13.64	.000	.034
	Canada (n = 256)	Italy (n = 328)	Mexico (n = 281)	France (n = 285)	The United States (n = 194)	Total (N = 1,344)	F	p	Effect size
Perception of the father by adolescents
Behavioral control	30.11 (9.31)	29.93 (8.65)	33.19 (10.65)	32.97 (9.34)	29.66 (7.46)	31.45 (9.33)	6.40	.000	.030
Rules	16.21 (5.11)	16.60 (4.81)	17.62 (6.05)	16.92 (5.19)	15.84 (3.94)	16.51 (5.13)	6.02	.000	.026
Authorization	13.90 (5.09)	13.23 (4.75)	15.51 (5.26)	15.69 (5.08)	13.76 (4.43	14.81 (5.01)	9.23	.000	.055
	Canada (n = 256)	Italy (n = 328)	Mexico (n = 281)	France (n = 285)	The United States (n = 194)	Total (N = 1,344)	F	p	Effect size
Disciplinary style	19.83 (5.92)	20.07 (6.46)	22.66 (7.78)	22.50 (6.94)	19.32 (5.21)	21.02 (6.72)	13.68	.000	.067
Punishment	5.93 (2.60)	5.72 (2.43)	6.46 (3.09)	6.59 (2.93)	5.60 (2.06)	6.08 (2.69)	9.01	.000	.025
Induction	11.71 (3.24)	10.81 (3.31)	9.42 (4.12)	10.19 (3.50)	11.87 (2.95)	10.48 (3.53)	9.81	.000	.026
Coercion	6.88 (2.73)	7.17 (2.74)	8.55 (4.09)	8.16 (3.50)	6.27 (2.18)	7.28 (3.13)	14.95	.000	.034
Conflicts	6.32 (3.20)	6.45 (3.18)	7.25 (4.13)	6.49 (3.42)	4.91 (3.23)	6.50 (2.67)	5.77	.000	.024
	Canada (n = 143)	Italy (n = 307)	Mexico (n = 173)	France (n = 229)	The United States (n = 79)	Total (N = 931)	F	p	Effect size
Parents self-report
Behavioral control	40.05 (5.35)	40.52 (5.41)	41.59 (4.79)	41.04 (4.93)	38.52 (5.19)	40.57 (5.64)	4.73	.001	.017
Rules	21.29 (3.57)	21.85 (2.97)	22.67 (2.95)	21.96 (3.07)	21.01 (4.48)	21.89 (3.25)	4.78	.001	.024
Authorization	18.55 (2.37)	18.70 (2.57)	18.92 (2.40)	18.90 (2.85)	18.12 (4.13)	18.72 (2.75)	3.69	.005	.008
Disciplinary style	18.25 (4.56)	20.46 (3.81)	21.84 (6.23)	20.18 (4.53)	18.35 (4.74)	20.13 (5.13)	11.59	.000	.047
Punishment	6.43 (2.65)	6.72 (2.42)	7.07 (2.85)	6.70 (2.36)	6.62 (2.06)	6.81 (2.55)	2.63	ns
Induction	11.95 (3.11)	11.84 (3.50)	10.22 (4.38)	11.38 (3.70)	11.87 (2.95)	11.51 (3.72)	10.16	.000	.046
Coercion	7.78 (2.26)	8.03 (3.61)	9.55 (4.09)	9.55 (3.16)	7.65 (3.81)	8.58 (3.59)	14.95	.000	.061
Conflicts	6.87 (2.69)	7.02 (2.60)	7.29 (3.33)	6.67 (2.39)	6.28 (1.68)	6.90 (2.66)	2.78	ns

The analyses of covariance indicate that in the case of perception of the fathers, adolescent responses differed also significantly by country for each of the three measures. Effect size is strong to medium. Pairwise comparisons show a quite similar pattern as in the case of the mother, except that this time Italy joined the United States and Canada in the same subgroup without significant differences that had relatively lower levels of behavioral control, and more induction when limits are exceeded. At the opposite, Mexican and France adolescents perceive more behavioral control, and a more coercive paternal discipline practiced. In the case of conflict with the father as perceived by adolescents, three significant differences emerge. Mexicans adolescents perceive the highest rate of conflict, U.S. adolescents perceive the lowest rate, no significant differences between France, Italy, and Canada that fall between Mexico and the United States.

When comparing the positions of parents between countries, univariate analyses show significant differences for two scales, with modest effect size. First, pairwise analyses indicate that the U.S. parent stood out with significantly lower levels of behavioral control; no significant differences between the four other countries. Second, the United States and Canada stand out by a lower level of requirements and less severe disciplinary practices; no differences between the three other counties. Finally, there is no difference between countries, when parents report the presence of conflicts with their adolescents.

The second objective of the study was to examine to what extent parental control practices were related to the presence of conflicts.

Table 3 presents the linear correlations between conflicts on the one hand and the scales and subscales of behavioral control and disciplinary style on the other, and this for the entire sample.

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations Between Conflicts, Behavioral Control, and Disciplinary Styles (Scales and Subscales) for the Three Sources of Information.

Mother: Perception of conflicts by adolescent (n = 1,727)
Behavioral control	−.04	Disciplinary style	. 57**
Rules	−.04	Punishment	.35**
Authorization	−.03	Coercion	.59**
		Induction	−.39**
Father: Perception of conflicts by adolescents (n = 1,632)
Behavioral control	−.03	Disciplinary style	.57**
Rules	−.00	Punishment	.36**
Authorization	.05	Coercion	.59**
		Induction	−.27**
Conflicts assessed by parents (n = 1,133)
Behavioral control	−.05	Disciplinary style	. 46**
Rules	−.06	Punishment	.26**
Authorization	−.05	Coercion	.53**
		Induction	−.21**

It is found that behavioral control’s scales and subscales are not significantly correlated with the presence of conflict. In contrast, disciplinary style is highly correlated with the presence of conflicts within the family. The adoption of punitive measures and especially coercive measures by parents are strongly associated with the presence of conflicts, whereas inductive measures are accompanied by a reduction of conflicts. This is true for each of the selected target: perception of the mother and the father by adolescents and statements by parents themselves.

Subsequently, we performed two series of regressions to (a) test their respective predictive value on the conflicts and (b) test if the association of the disciplinary subscales with conflicts varied by countries. For the comparison of the predictive values of each subscale, we establish a step-by-step hierarchical regression analysis by inserting each of the five subscales in the model. Table 4 shows that, in the case of adolescents, a same model emerge which only hold coercion and induction. Coercion is strongly associated with conflict in the case of the perception of the mother and the father, while induction is negatively associated with conflict. For the parents, the model only hold the coercive variables that have a significant predictive value on the conflicts. The second series of regression analyses used interaction effects between each subscale variables and the countries. Those analyses showed that coercion, was strongly associated with perception of conflicts by adolescents with mothers and fathers and parents themselves in all countries. The same results hold for punitiveness. Same results for induction negatively associated with conflict in all countries. However, the results showed some variations in the strength of that association in certain countries.¹

Table 4.

Step by Step Regression Analyses of the Subscales Behavioral Control and Disciplinary Style on Conflicts for the Three Information Sources.

Subscales	R	R ²	ΔR²	β	t	Significance	Dubin–Watson statistic
Adolescents/mother
Coercion	.59	.34	.34	.51	25.25	.000	1.83
Induction	−37	.38	.04	−.19	−9.68	.000
Adolescents/father
Coercion	.57	.33	.33	.57	27.90	.000	1.80
Induction	.59	.35	.01	−.10	4.14	.000
Parents
Coercion	.53	.27	.27	.53	20.96	.000	1.80

Discussion

The first part of Hypothesis 1 postulated that the United States and Canada would differ from other countries by exerting less behavioral control and an approach valuing induction in case of noncompliance with family rules. This is totally confirmed. Whether questioning adolescents about the practices of each parent or parents themselves, a clear common vision emerges, dominated by a model marked by reduced rules and less requirements for what concerns authorization demands. European American and Canadian parents share educational practices marked by induction and negotiation rather than coercion in case of problems.

Studying patterns of parenting in various cultures, research has delineated two contrasting parenting models that regulate the achievement of developmental tasks, such as access to autonomy in adolescence (Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003; Kagitçibasi, 2007; Kitayama, 2002). The first model, called independent, values individuation and gives heightened importance to the development of initiative and autonomy; the second, the interdependent model, emphasizes collective dimensions, mutual support, allegiance to family, and respect of parental authority. Results suggest that European American and Canadian parents clearly adopted the first model that limits restrictions and demands and promote conflict resolution that involves induction and exclude coercive disciplinary forms.

As expected, a higher level of control practices than other countries characterizes Mexican families: more rules, more restrictions, and a disciplinary approach more repressive and coercive. These sets of results were confirmed regardless of the informant: adolescent’s reports of each parent or parents’ self-report. This places Mexico among the countries that have adopted the interdependent model, emphasizes allegiance to family and respect of parental authority. This confirms the observations reported by many observers of the Mexican family who consider that the collective cultural pattern engender a family approach dominated by the imposition of parental rules, authoritarian, and punitive tendencies when parental rules are broken (Diaz-Loving, 2006; Moral de la Rubia, 2013). Solis-Camara et al. (2014) recognize that this model still dominates in Mexican society even when they observe a gradual countercultural movement in middle and upper-class society placing a greater emphasis on individuation and by adopting a model of parenting that promotes independence and negotiation in conflicts.

It was expected that the Italians adolescents reported high level of parental control as those reported by Mexican adolescents. This was not the case. Regarding adolescents’ reports of maternal parenting, the Italians occupied every time the median position for the various control measures. Regarding adolescents’ reports of paternal parenting, Italian adolescents joined Canadians and European Americans in their perceptions of the lowest levels of parental control, and a disciplinary style more characterized by negotiation and induction. Generally, Italy is at a middle position for what concerns the perception by adolescents of behavioral control by the mother or by parent reports themselves. A distinction appears when looking at the perception of the father who appears as a person who, like the Canadian and American fathers, seems less demanding, and more open to negotiation in case of noncompliance with agreed rules. This gap in favor of the father seems specific to the Italian family. Claes, Perchec, et al. (2010) already noted that specificity of Italian fathers in a study comparing the perception of the father by French, Italian, and Canadian adolescents. On her side, Bosoni (2014) emphasizes that recent empirical studies highlight a change in the father role in Italy, toward a more family-involved style of male parenthood. This characteristic of Italian fathers, therefore, deserves to be explored more systematically.

It was expected that France would occupy a middle position between the most demanding countries in terms of parental control. This is clearly not the case, since the French adolescents perceived, as the Mexicans, the highest level of constraints and rules and a disciplinary style more punitive and coercive in the case of both parent. Regarding coercion, we examined the responses of adolescents to the next question: “When you do some really serious things, sometimes your mom (or dad) hits you.” In the case of the mother, 32 French adolescents endorse this statement by stating that this happens often (15) or always (17). The Mexicans followed with 29 (14 and 5), followed by the Italians with 18 (13 and 5), while this affirmation is rarely endorsed by Canadian and the United States, 4 each time (2 and 2). In the case of the fathers, the differences between countries are more marked: 36 adolescents in France endorse this statement, 24 in Mexico, 11 in Italy, 4 in Canada, and only 2 in the United States. The hypothesis concerning using coercive disciplinary action is therefore confirmed for Mexico but it is in France that the use of physical punishments for adolescents is the most frequent.

The case of France is undoubtedly the most intriguing since most results are contrary to what was expected. But what is more surprising is the use of punitive and coercive measures in case of noncompliance and the use of corporal punishment by some French parents, even it is relatively infrequent. We found here the emotional distance between parents and adolescents still underscored by Sabatier and Berry (2008) and Suizzo (2002), distance which originated from conformity to traditional social rules and respect for authority in the French family.

Those results suggest that how to achieve parental control varies according to the educational values that dominates in each country. Indeed, the present results gathered from five highly industrialized Western societies delineate consistent differences in terms of parental control. The results are consistent with the notion that parenting, particularly parental control is dictated by social codes and culture-specific values, which promote certain parental practices and proscribe others (Kagitçibasi, 2007; Smetana, 2011; Smith, Bond, & Kagitçibasi, 2006).

The second group of hypotheses about conflicts are partially confirmed. It was expected that Mexico and Italy would stand a higher level of conflict with parents. This was confirmed for Mexico. Compared with other countries, the Mexican family appears to be more conflictual and this was confirmed across informers. It was also expected that the United States and Canada would stand a lower rate of conflicts. This is true for the United States which clearly stands out from other countries by a significantly lower rate of conflict and this was confirmed across the three sources of information. Contrary to the hypotheses, Italy differs from Mexico in term of conflicts between adolescents and their parents and joined France and Canada where respondents report a medium level of conflicts.

This study also aimed to establish links between disciplinary style and the presence of conflicts in the family. The hypothesis postulating that coercive disciplinary practices will be associated with the presence of more severe conflicts is clearly confirmed. The adoption of a disciplinary style dominated by coercion is a very strong predictor of the presence of conflicts within families and this is true in every country and for the three sources of information: perception of maternal and paternal practices by adolescents and statement by the parents themselves. This joins results of several intercultural studies which have found the deleterious effect of coercive parental practices to children in all countries examined (Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford & Deater-Deckard, 2012). The present study also shows that inductive practices, which calls for negotiation and participation, reduces the frequency and severity of conflicts. Once again, this joins a body of research that shows that this type of parenting approach serve to support positive adolescents’ outcomes (Barber et al., 2005; Bush & Peterson, 2013). One last observation must be underlined. This study found that behavioral control is not associated with the presence of conflicts between adolescents and parents. This means that higher family rules requirements and strict requests for authorization are not related to the presence of conflicts in the family. This is not consistent with some speculations made by Kerr and Stattin (2000) who found that a high level of parental control leads to a number of negative outcomes. It is the presence of coercive practices and harsh disciplinary measures in case of noncompliance with rules, which is source of negative outcomes.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Direction

This study has several merits. The national samples are relatively large; the sources of information come both from adolescents and parents. The study is based on instruments adequately validated in the five countries. The analyses have attempted to account for confounding variables and analysis of relationships between variables was checked through the different countries. The limitations of this study, however, are numerous. First, the nature of the sampling: adolescents came from participating schools, and thus made up a convenience sample. These schools are located in cities and regions of the countries that are not necessarily representative of the populations of their respective countries. This poses limitation to the generalizability of our results. Another limitation concerns information from parents. The questionnaire was addressed at the parental couple, and only a quarter of the couples of parents answered together. Most often the mother answered alone and only 10% of the fathers responded. We have been confronted with a classic problem that concerns the low rate of participation and involvement of fathers in research, which can only be solved by using lengthy and expensive procedures, especially in an intercultural study involving a large number of participants (Mitchell et al., 2007). This research investigates only three aspects of family relationships in adolescence and this poses an other limitation. Most studies examining adolescent family relations and developmental outcomes look at other central dimensions such as emotional closeness or psychological control that may act as moderating variables on observed links. It should be understood that the first objective of the research was to compare three dimensions of family relations in five countries, the analysis of the links between these variables being a secondary objective. The present study falls within a broader international research that examined the main aspects of parenting in adolescence and this study was the first analytical step. The authors intend to continue to work from this database and develop models integrating the various dimensions of parenting in adolescence, by examining the links with internalized and externalized problems, and to test the robustness of these links in the five countries.

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: The main author received a financial support from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council(SSHRC) (Grant : 10 – 6304 – 56).

Notes

ORCID iD

Michel Claes

References

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. E.

Shagle

S. C.

(1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.

Barber

B. K.

Stolz

H. E.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70, 1-137.

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Blishen

B. R.

Carrol

W. K.

Moore

(1987). A revisited socio-economic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 13, 71-79.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2013). Parenting and child mental health: A cross-cultural perspective. World Psychiatry, 12, 258-265.

Bosoni

M. L.

(2014). “Breadwinners” or “involved fathers?” Men, fathers and work in Italy. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 45, 293-315.

Branje

S. J.

van Doorn

van der Valk

Meeus

(2009). Parent–adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution types, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 195-204.

Bush

K. R.

Peterson

G. W.

(2013). Parent–child relationships in diverse contexts. In Peterson

G. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 275-302). New York, NY: Springer.

10.

Claes

Debrosse

Miranda

Perchec

(2010). An instrument for measuring parental educational practices in adolescence: Validation from Québec and France. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 60, 65-78.

11.

Claes

Perchec

Miranda

Benoit

Bariaud

Lanz

. . . Lacourse

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental practices: A cross-national comparison of Canada, France, and Italy. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 225-238.

12.

Clermont

Claes

(2008). Une etude comparative des pratiques parentales d’adolescents Québecois et haïtiens vivant à Montreal [A comparative study of parenting practices of Québec and Haitian adolescents living in Montreal]. Revue Québecoise de Psychologie, 29, 205-223.

13.

Cruz-Santiago

Ramírez García

J. I.

(2011). “Hay Que Ponerse en los Zapatos del Joven”: Adaptive parenting of adolescent children among Mexican-American parents residing in a dangerous neighborhood. Family Process, 50, 92-114.

14.

Darling

Cumsille

Pena-Alampe

(2005). Rules, legitimacy of parental authority, and obligation to obey in Chile, Philippines, and United States. In Smetana

(Ed.), Changing boundaries of parental authority during adolescence: New direction for child and adolescent development (pp. 47-60). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Darling

Steinberg

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

16.

Diaz-Loving

(2006). Mexico. In Georgas

Berry

van de Vijver

Kagitçibasi

Poortinga

Y. P.

(Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 394-401). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Ember

C. R.

Ember

(2005). Explaining corporal punishment of children: A cross-cultural study. American Anthropologist, 107, 609-619.

18.

Erkut

(2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 19-24.

19.

Galambos

N. L.

Barker

E. T.

Almeida

D. M.

(2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594.

20.

Georgas

Berry

J. W.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Kagitçibasi

Poortinga

Y. H.

(2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

21.

George

E. L.

Bloom

B. L.

(1997). A brief scale for assessing parental child-rearing practices: Psychometric properties and psychosocial correlates. Family Process, 36, 63-80.

22.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Children Development Perspective, 7, 133-137.

23.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Zelli

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

(2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81, 487-502.

24.

Greenfield

P. M.

Keller

Fuligni

Maynard

(2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461-490.

25.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(1996). Introduction. In Harkness

Super

C. M.

(Eds.), Parents’ cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences (pp. 1-23). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Hofstede

G. H.

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London, England: Sage.

27.

Kagitçibasi

(2007). Family, self, and human development across culture. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Kerr

Stattin

(2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.

29.

Kerr

Stattin

Trost

(1999). To know you is to trust you: Parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737-752.

30.

Kim

S. Y.

(2000). Parenting practices and adolescent depressive symptoms in Chinese American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 420-435.

31.

Kitayama

(2002). Culture and basic psychological process: Towards a systematic view of culture. Psychological Bulletin, 12 8, 73-77.

32.

Kwak

Berry

(2006). Canada. In Georgas

Berry

J. W.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Kagitcibasi

Poortinga

Y. P.

(Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 284-292). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Lannegrand-Willems

Sabatier

Brisset

(2012). France. In Arnett

(Ed.), Adolescent psychology around the world (pp. 257-272). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

34.

Lansford

J. E.

Deater-Deckard

(2012). Childrearing discipline and violence in developing countries. Child Development, 83, 62-75.

35.

Lanz

(2000). From adolescence to young adulthood: A family transition. In Violato

Oddonne-Paolucci

Genius

(Eds.), The changing family and child development (pp. 13-146). Farnham, England: Ashgate.

36.

Laursen

Collins

W. A.

(1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197-212.

37.

Maccoby

E. E.

(1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.

38.

Metzler

C. W.

Biglan

Ary

D. V.

(1998). The stability and validity of early adolescents’ reports of parenting constructs. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 600-619.

39.

Miller

P. J.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1995). Cultural practices: Toward an integration of culture and development: New directions for child development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40.

Mitchell

S. J.

See

H. M.

Tarkow

A. K. H.

Cabrera

McFadden

K. E.

Shannon

J. D.

(2007). Conducting studies with fathers: Challenges and opportunities. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 239-244.

41.

Moed

Gershoff

E. T.

Eisenberg

Hofer

Losoya

Spinrad

T. L.

Liew

(2015). Parent-adolescent conflict as sequences of reciprocal negative emotion: Links with conflict resolution and adolescents’ behavior problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1607-1622.

42.

Moilanen

K. L.

Shaw

D. S.

Criss

M. M.

Dishion

T. S.

(2009). Growth and predictors of parental knowledge of youth behavior during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 800-825.

43.

Moral de la Rubia

(2013). Prácticas parentales y percepción del rol en padres de adolescents [Parental practices and role perception in parents of teenagers]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 5, 6-19.

44.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

45.

Peterson

G. W.

Steinmetz

S. K.

Wilson

S. M.

(2005). Parent-youth relations: Cultural and cross cultural perspectives. New York: The Haworth Press.

46.

Pinquart

(2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53, 613-640.

47.

Runyan

D. K.

Shankar

Hassan

Hunter

W. M.

Jain

Paula

C. S.

. . . Bordin

I. A.

(2010). International variations in harsh child discipline. Pediatrics, 126, 701-711.

48.

Sabatier

Berry

J. W.

(2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style, and perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second-generation immigrant youth in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 159-185.

49.

Sansbury

L. L.

Wahler

T. G.

(1992). Pathways to maladaptive parenting with mothers and their conduct disordered children. Behavior Modification, 16, 574-92.

50.

Scabini

Marta

Lanz

(2006). The transition to adulthood and family relations: An intergenerational perspective. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

51.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413-424.

52.

Smetana

J. G.

(2011). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct their world. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

53.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

54.

Smith

P. B.

Bond

M. H.

Kagitçibasi

(2006). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Living and working in a changing world. London, England: Sage.

55.

Solis-Camara

Fung

M. P.

Fox

R. A.

(2014). Parenting in Mexico: Relationships based on love and obedience. In Selin

(Ed.), Parenting across cultures: Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in non-Western cultures (pp. 349-366). New York, NY: Springer.

56.

Sophtas-Naland

Sukhodolsky

D. G.

(2006). Family in the United States: Social context, structure, and roles. In Georgas

Berry

J. W.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Kagitcibasi

Poortinga

Y. H.

(Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 483-490). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Suizzo

M.-A.

(2002). French parent’s cultural models and childrearing beliefs. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 297-307.

58.

Youniss

(1994). Rearing children for society. In Smetana

J. G.

(Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implications (pp. 37-50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.