Parenting Styles and Practices of Latino Parents and Latino Fifth Graders’ Academic,Cognitive,Social,and Behavioral Outcomes

Participants

Participants were 73 Hispanic fifth graders from two public urban elementary schools in California. For both schools, over 90% of children qualified for free or reduced price lunch. The sample comprised 58% girls and 42% boys. The majority (82%) of these children was born in the United States and the remaining (18%) in Mexico. The children were from households with an average of 4.1 children (1.9 SD), and 88% lived in a two-parent household made up of the mother and father or step-parents. Of those two-parent households, 84% lived with both biological parents, 14% lived with their mother and step-father, and one child (2%) lived with the father and step-mother. The 12% of children who did not live in a two-parent household lived with a single-mother. All children in the study were fluent in English.

The parents of these children were born in Mexico (75%), Central America (7%), or were of Hispanic origin and born in the United States (18%). For the highest level of education completed, 13.7% of mothers completed elementary school, 34.2% high school, 5% community college or trade school, 15.1% a bachelor’s degree, and 31.5% unknown. Of the fathers, 8.2% completed elementary school, 24.7% high school, 1.4% community college or trade school, and 12.3% a bachelor’s degree, and 53.4% unknown.

Measures and Procedures

Parenting Styles of Mothers and Fathers and Demographic Correlates

Overall, children reported their mothers (M = 2.30, SD = 0.50) and fathers (M = 2.14, SD = 0.59) to be relatively high in authoritativeness with mothers rated significantly higher on authoritativeness than fathers, t(63) = 3.43, p = .04. Ratings on the authoritarian and permissive styles were low for mothers (authoritarian: M = 1.67, SD = 0.53; permissive: M = 1.21, SD = 0.41) and fathers (authoritarian: M = 1.68, SD = 0.53; permissive: M = 1.20, SD = 0.41) with no significant difference between mothers and fathers. To determine if demographic factors influenced the parenting style scores, we conducted analyses with parents’ country of origin, parents’ marital status, number of children in the family, and child’s gender for each of the parenting styles.

Parenting Styles and Child Outcomes

Mothers’ authoritative ratings were significantly and positively correlated with children’s grades, social competence, perspective-taking, and self-regulation and negatively correlated with children’s aggression (see Table 1). After controlling for fathers’ country of origin, marital status, and number of children, fathers’ authoritativeness was significantly and positively related to children’s academic engagement, social competence, and perspective-taking (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Correlations of Mothers’ Parenting Style Scores With Children’s Outcomes.

	Mother
Outcome	Authoritative	Authoritarian	Permissive
Grades	.303*	−.019	.072
Academic engagement	.222	.013	.007
Social competence	.360**	.047	−.006
Perspective-taking	.353**	−.120	.072
Self-regulation	.312**	−.057	.076
Aggression	−.307**	.164	.099

*

p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Correlations of Fathers’ Parenting Style Scores With Child’s Outcomes Partialing Out Place of Origin, Marital Status, and Number of Children in Family.

	Father
Outcome	Authoritative	Authoritarian	Permissive
Grades	.217	.142	.070
Academic engagement	.313*	.116	.024
Social competence	.279*	.180	−.073
Perspective-taking	.312*	.043	.032
Self-regulation	.260	.101	.070
Aggression	−.122	−.061	.216

*

p < .05, two-tailed.

Regression Analyses of Specific Parenting Practices From PAQ and Children’s Outcomes

In order to determine what specific parenting practices best predicted children’s outcomes, stepwise regression analyses were conducted for both mothers and fathers on each of the child outcomes using the individual items from the PAQ as predictors (see Table 3 for summary of each of the regression models). With respect to child grades, for mothers, only item, 11, “Does your mother tell you exactly and clearly what she expects of you?” explained 14.3% of unique variance (t = 3.32, p < .01). For fathers, after controlling for fathers’ country of origin, fathers’ marital status, and number of children in the family (9.8% combined explained variance), one item, 4, “When your father makes a rule or expects you to do something, does he explain the reason for it?” explained 11.2% of unique variance (t = 2.67, p = .01) in child grades.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Stepwise Regression Models of Children’s Outcome Variables Using the Parental Practices From Parental Authority Questionnaire as Possible Predictors.

Outcome variable	Mother predictors	R2 change	Beta	Father predictors	R2 change	Beta
Grades	Clear expectations–11	.143	.379	Immigrant	—	.002
				Married	—	.114
				Number of children	.098	−.084
				Explains rules–4	.112	.391
Academic engagement	Clear expectations–11	.083	.320	Immigrant	—	−.067
	Allow child’s way–1	.055	.300	Married	—	.117
	Allow child’s opinion–5	.058	−.262	Number of children	.061	.010
				Explains rules–4	.182	.497
Social competence	Allow child’s way–1	.115	.367	Immigrant	−	−.058
	Explains rules–4	.065	.306	Married	−	−.094
	Upset when disagree–16	.065	.294	Number of children	.084	−.010
	Directs behavior–13	.065	.256	Explains rules–4	.138	.451
				Directs behavior–13	.070	.281
Perspective-taking	Allow child’s way–1	.157	.335	Immigrant	—	−.085
	Allow child question–7	.073	.277	Married	—	.055
				Number of children	.032	−.162
				Allow child question–7	.130	.362
Self-regulation	Allow child’s way–1	.201	.423	Immigrant	—	−.019
	Understanding–27	.085	.292	Married	—	.014
				Number of children	.027	−.016
				Allow child’s way–1	.139	.416
				Explains rules–4	.103	.446
				Does what child wants–14	.073	−.317
Aggression	Understanding–27	.218	−.466	Immigrant	—	−.160
				Married	—	−.037
				Number of children	.056	−.227
				Explains rules–4	.221	−.650
				Does what child wants–14	.081	.332
				Directs behavior–13	.072	−.285

Note. Predictors for the regression analysis are represented with a short description followed by the item number on the Parental Authority Questionnaire. A full description of each item can be found in the text portion of the results. Because immigrant status, marriage status, and number of children were found to be significant covariates in earlier analyses for fathers’ parenting, those variables were entered first in the regression models to serve as covariates (gray shaded variables). The covariates were not found to be significant for mothers’ parenting and therefore were not included in the models for mothers’ practices.

With respect to child academic engagement, for mothers, three items explained 19.6% of the unique variance: 11 “Does your mother tell you exactly and clearly what she expects of you?” (8.3% variance explained; t = 2.67, p = .01), 1 “Does your mother let you have your way as often as she does?” (5.5% variance explained; t = 2.52, p = .01), and 5 “When your mother makes a family rule that you think is unfair or too strict, does your mother allow you to say what you think and discuss it with her?” (5.8% variance explained; t = −2.12, p = .04). For fathers, after entering the three covariates in the first step of the regression analysis (6.1% of the combined variance), only item, 4 “When your father makes a rule or expects you to do something, does he explain the reason for it?” explained a significant portion of unique variance (18.2%; t = 2.67, p = .01).

With respect to child social competence, four maternal practices explained 31.0% of the unique variance: 1 “Does your mother let you have your way as often as she does?” (11.5% variance explained; t = 3.36, p < .01), 4 “When your mother makes a rule or expects you to do something, does she explain the reason for it?” (6.5% variance explained; t = 2.82, p < .01), 16 “Does your mother get very upset when you try to disagree with her?” (6.5% variance explained; t = 2.67, p = .01), and 13 “Does your mother tell you how you should behave?” (6.5% variance explained; t = −2.43, p = .02). For fathers, after entering the three covariates (8.4% of combined variance explained), two practices explained an additional 20.8% of unique variance in child social competence: 4 “When your father makes a rule or expects you to do something, does he explain the reason for it?” (13.8% variance explained; t = 3.22, p < .01) and 13 “Does your father tell you how you should behave?” (7% variance explained; t = 2.20, p = .01).

With respect to child perspective-taking, two practices explained a significant portion of unique variance for mothers: 1 “Does your mother let you have your way as often as she does?” (15.7% variance explained; t = 3.00, p < .01) and 7 “Does your mother allow you to ask questions about the decisions she makes?” (7.3% variance explained; t = 2.48, p = .016). For fathers, after entering the three covariates (3.2% combined variance explained), item 7 “Does your father allow you to ask questions about the decisions he makes?” (13% variance explained; t = 2.79, p < .01) was the only practice that explained a significant portion of unique variance in children’s perspective-taking.

With respect to child self-regulation, two practices explained 28.6% of the unique variance for mothers: 1 “Does your mother let you have your way as often as she does?” (20.1% variance explained; t = 4.02, p < .01) and 27 “Is your mother understanding when you disagree with her?” (8.5% variance explained; t = 2.77, p < .01). For fathers, after entering the three covariates (2.7% combined variance explained), three practices explained an additional 31.5% of unique variance in children’s self-regulation: 1 “Does your father let you have your way as often as he does?” (13.9% variance explained; t = 3.36, p < .01), 4 “When your father makes a rule or expects you to do something, does he explain the reason for it?” (13.8% variance explained; t = 3.17, p < .01), and 14 “Does your father do what the children in the family want when making family decisions?” (7.3% variance explained; t = −2.31, p = .03).

Lastly, with respect to child aggression, for mothers one item, 27, “Is your mother understanding when you disagree with her?” explained 21.8% of the unique variance (t = −4.28, p < .01). For fathers, after entering the three covariates (5.6% combined variance explained), three practices explained an additional 37.4% of unique variance in children’s aggression: 4 “When your father makes a rule or expects you to do something, does he explain the reason for it?” (22.1% variance explained; t = −4.96, p < .01), 14 “Does your father do what the children in the family want when making family decisions?” (8.1% variance explained; t = 2.72, p < .01), and 13 “Does your father tell you how you should behave?” (7.2% variance explained; t = −2.47, p = .02).

In sum, eight maternal practices of varying combinations explained child outcomes (see Table 4). The practices that were most consistently significant were when mothers allowed reciprocity and give-and-take such as allowing children to have their way as often as they do, when they were exact and clear about their expectations, and when they were understanding when their child disagreed. With regard to fathers, five practices of varying combinations explained child outcomes. The practice that was most consistently predictive across the outcome measures was when fathers used reason and explanation. Another significant practice was fathers providing their children with clear guidelines for proper behavior.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Summary of Significant Specific Parenting Practices From the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) Predicting Child Outcome Variables.

	Significant parenting practices
Outcome variables	Does what the children want when making family decisions—item 14	Lets child have way as often as s/he does—item 1	When making a rule that child thinks is unfair, parent allows child to discuss with her/him—item 5	Parent allows child to ask questions about the decisions s/he makes—item 7	Parent is understanding when child disagrees—item 27	When making rule or expects child to do something, parent explains reason for it—item 4	Parent tells child exactly and clearly what s/he expects of child—item 11	Parent tells child how to behave—item 13	Parent gets very upset when child tries to disagree with her/him—item 16
Grades						Father	Mother
Academic engagement		Mother	Mother			Father	Mother
Social competence		Mother				Mother Father		Mother Father	Mother
Perspective-taking		Mother		Mother Father
Self-regulation	−Father	Mother Father			Mother	Father
Aggression	Father				−Mother	−Father		−Father

Note. All predictors were positively related to outcomes except when specified with “−.”

School-Related Parenting Practices As Reported by Teacher and Child Outcomes

Lastly, we examined the relations between various school-related parenting practices and child outcomes (see Table 5 for correlation matrix). Parents having transportation to get to school when needed was significantly and positively related to children’s academic engagement (r = .52), social competence (r = .44), perspective-taking (r = .47), and self-regulation (r = .43). The frequency with which parents attended parent-teacher conferences was significantly related to children’s grades (r = .31), academic engagement (r = .45), perspective-taking (r = .28), and self-regulation (r = .32). Frequency of parents volunteering at school was significantly correlated with children’s academic engagement (r = .47), social competence (r = .32), perspective-taking (r = .31), and self-regulation (r = .31). Parents’ willingness to attend fun events at school was significantly and positively correlated with all of the outcome variables except aggression. How involved parents were with their child’s education at home was significantly related to academic engagement (r = .42), perspective-taking (r = .36), and self-regulation (r = .32). Attending school information sessions and PTA meetings was not significantly correlated with any of the outcome measures.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Pearson’s Correlations Between School-Related Parenting Practices and Children’s Outcome Variables Controlling for Mothers’ and Fathers’ Authoritative Ratings.

School-related parenting practice	Grades	Academic engagement	Social competence	Perspective-taking	Self-regulation	Aggression
Transportation	.276+	.520**	.435**	.472**	.431**	−.139
P-T conference	.314*	.454**	.270+	.282*	.318*	−.022
Volunteer	.277+	.407**	.319*	.305*	.311*	−.175
Fun events	.301*	.506**	.391**	.407**	.424**	−.132
Contact	.277+	.077	.087	.070	.062	−.047
Info sessions	.154	.154	.140	.225	.124	−.091
PTA	.132	.047	−.050	.049	−.010	−.018
Involved at home	.280+	.419**	.231	.362**	.315*	−.199

Note. P-T = parents-teacher; PTA = parent-teacher association.

+

p < .06 near significant. *p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Parenting Styles and Outcomes

We found that authoritative parenting style is consistently and positively related to positive child outcomes and negatively related to negative child outcomes. Children who were more than less likely to view their mothers as authoritative had higher grades and self-regulation and lower aggression. Fathers who were more than less likely to be viewed by their children as authoritative had children who were more academically engaged, socially competent, and displayed higher levels of perspective-taking. Therefore, our results reveal that fathers, not just mothers, play a critical role in their children’s developmental competence. Our results also add to the controversy on cultural differences in the effects of parenting styles. We found, as did Steinberg et al. (1992) with Latino adolescents, that the more authoritative immigrant parents are the more positive are the outcomes for Latino children. Requirements for such proper behavior and compliance with societal rules need not be implemented in an authoritarian or hierarchical way, as has been suggested by some researchers (e.g., Lindahl & Malik, 1999). We found that the more authoritative the means are that Latino parents use to socialize their children the more likely they are to reach their parenting goals.

Also, it is interesting to note that we found, as have other socialization researchers, that fathers’ parenting styles more so than mothers’ parenting styles are affected by demographic factors of parents’ country of origin and marital status, number of children in the family, and sex of the child.

Parenting Practices and Outcomes

Derived from individual items of Buri’s PAQ measure, the six outcomes associated with specific parenting practices will be discussed for mothers and fathers. Interestingly, all practices, with one exception, that were significantly related to positive outcomes were consistent with authoritative parenting.

For mothers, the parenting practice that was most important was reciprocity and give-and-take (i.e., Mother lets child have his or her way as often as mother does), which was related to teachers’ ratings of the child’s academic engagement, social competence, ability to take others’ perspective, and self-regulation. The practice of mother being understanding when child disagrees was related to self-regulation and lower levels of aggression. The practice of mother telling child exactly and clearly what her expectations are was related to academic engagement and good grades.

These findings suggest that Latino mothers, not just European American mothers, do indeed engage in reciprocal interactions with their child, restraint and understanding when their child disagrees, and communicating clear expectations. These practices, which as we have found Latino mothers do indeed implement, are often deemed to be based on individualistic, democratic philosophy and ideology―inconsistent with Latino mothers’ collectivistic, hierarchical values (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997). Our findings reveal that contrary to the suggestion by some researchers that authoritarian means are needed to achieve collectivistic ends, egalitarian means may be more effective in producing ends that are often attributed to cultures that are labeled collectivistic.

Moreover, mother discussing rules that the child deems unfair, mother allowing child to question decisions the mother has made, mother providing guidelines for proper behavior, and mother using reason and explanation were all also related to positive child outcomes of academic engagement, perspective-taking, and social competence, respectively. All of these practices are consistent with authoritative parenting, which involves the parent accommodating the child’s needs, perspective, and individuality but also requiring the child to also accommodate parental and societal expectations and rules (Baumrind, 2012).

A maternal practice that was inconsistent with authoritative parenting but was positively related to child social competence was mother becoming upset when child disagrees with mother. The lesson these children may have drawn from their mothers becoming upset when they disagreed with them is that disagreement has to be conveyed respectfully and in ways to maintain social harmony and cooperation.

For fathers, the parenting practice that was most significant was paternal use of reason/explanation which was related to good grades, academic engagement, social competence, self-regulation, and low aggression. Other paternal practices that were significant included children who reported that their fathers provide them with guidelines for proper behavior who in turn were viewed by their teachers as socially competent and low on aggression. Furthermore, children who reported that their fathers allow them to ask questions about their fathers’ decisions and who engaged in reciprocal interactions and give-and-take were viewed by their teachers as adept at taking others’ perspective and being self-regulated, respectively. Again, these practices are consistent with authoritative parenting and the positive outcomes that are associated with authoritative parenting.

A parenting practice that children reported for their fathers that is consistent with permissive parenting is fathers’ routinely giving-in to child (i.e., does what the children want when making family decisions). The teachers of these children viewed them as aggressive and lacking self-regulatory skills. Our findings reveal that fathers’ involvement by means of authoritative practices such as using reason and explanation and having guidelines for proper behavior are especially important in deterring aggressive behavior in children. Conversely, when fathers’ involvement is lacking and fathers are inactive or easily give-in and relinquish control, developmental outcomes are negative―in particular outcomes of self-regulation and aggression. Our findings support Baumrind’s (2012) proposition and findings (Baumrind et al., 2010) that parental control must not only be rational, reasoned, and outcome-oriented, but also firm, so that children are able to clearly differentiate the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. When fathers routinely give-in and do not take a firm stand to enforce basic rules and limits or to curb unacceptable child behaviors, children are deprived of the opportunity to redress their misbehavior or control frustration and negative emotions that may be associated with having to delay gratification (Eisenberg et al., 2004; Patterson & Fisher, 2002).

Practices that both mothers and fathers implemented, that were significantly related to child outcomes, included use of reason and explanation which was positively related to child social competence, allowing child to question parental decisions which was positively related to child perspective-taking, reciprocity/give-and-take which was positively related to child self-regulation, and providing guidelines for proper behavior which was positively related to child social competence. Therefore, it is important for both mothers and fathers to engage in practices that heighten children’s own logical capacities to understand cause and effect relationships and thus societal rules and consequences.

School-Related Parenting Practices and Child Outcomes

We found that parents providing transportation to school, attending parent-teacher conferences, volunteering at school, attending fun events at school, and being involved in their child’s academic work (education and learning) at home are positively and significantly related (although in some cases marginally significant: p < .06) to both grades and academic engagement as well as to social competence, perspective-taking, and self-regulation.

Although 90% of our participants qualified for free or reduced price lunch, many of their parents were resourceful enough to provide transportation, attend parent-teacher conferences, volunteer at school, attend fun events at school, and be involved at home in their child’s education. Our results are similar to those of Jarrett (2000) with African American parents and Delgado-Gaitan (1992) with Mexican American parents who found, as we did, that despite living in low income circumstances, parents in these studies were affectively warm, nurturant, and deeply committed to their children’s success. Our results and that of Jarrett’s and Delgado-Gaitan’s reveal that families living in low income circumstances are not a homogeneous group, and the strengths they possess in being able to cope with and triumph in low income conditions need to be further studied, so that interventionists are apprised of their strengths and resources.

The sample for the present study was modest in size due to the intensive interviews we conducted to collect data, and caution should be exercised about drawing conclusions from non-experimental and cross-sectional data. We also did not assess variations in social class, economic access, and level of acculturation to be able to distinguish cultural and value-based factors associated with parenting and child outcomes from economic and social class factors. The potential differences and interactions among these factors and the unique outcomes associated with social class, economic access, and level of acculturation are grossly understudied. However, in the present study, we did “control” for economic access by having a relatively homogeneous sample of children who qualified for free and reduced price lunch (over 90%) and statistically controlled for fathers’ country of origin (mothers’ country of origin was not significantly related to child outcomes). Nevertheless, research is needed to systematically examine differences attributable to different levels of economic access and acculturation, which in some existing studies in the literature are confounded.

The strength of the present study is the absence of shared-source variance, which leads to the inflation of significant findings and is prevalent in the parenting literature. We obtained the parenting styles data from the children and the outcome data from teachers. We also studied an age group and a minority group that is understudied. Our results would appear to provide further support for the assertion that an authority style akin to Baumrind’s authoritative parenting does, indeed, confer academic and psychological advantages upon Latino children. We found no significant links between degree of authoritarian or permissive parenting styles and child outcomes with the exception of the practice consistent with permissive parenting involving fathers routinely giving-in to their child, which was negatively related to child self-regulation and positively related to child aggression―a pattern that has also been found for European American children (Patterson & Fisher, 2002) and is consistent with the findings of Gayles et al. (2009) for Latino sixth and seventh grade children.

Unlike other studies (e.g., Steinberg et al., 1992), we did not find that our elementary-school-age Latino children viewed their parents as authoritarian. We found that the Latino children in our study were likely to regard both their mothers and fathers as authoritative not authoritarian―findings that are similar to those of Varela et al. (2004). The authoritative pattern we found is consistent with Latino cultural values, which involve the adoption of non-punitive control by parents, as they seek to promote the values of harmonious interpersonal relationships (respeto) and training in responsibility and morality (educacion), as well as support for and dedication to children’s academic success (Valdes, 1996).