What characteristic do preschoolers who are raised by permissive parents tend to exhibit?

The type of parenting style a parent exhibits greatly affects child development. Diana Baumrind, Eleanor Maccoby, and John Martin were integral in identifying four main types of parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and indifferent. We explain how parenting style is manifested in infancy through early childhood. Additionally, we examine the characteristics of each parenting style and how each style affects children’s temperament, attachment relationships, academic success, and psychological development. The effects of parenting styles are embedded in class, cultural, and historical contexts. The typical definitions used for each parenting style may not accurately represent all cultures; therefore, we examine the effects of parenting styles for European, Asian, African, and Latin American cultures. Furthermore, we explain how various factors such as family socioeconomic status, maternal employment status, parental education level, parental stress, marital problems, and parental depression affect the parenting style a parent is likely to exhibit.

Parenting styles, attachment, and creativity

Parenting styles reflect how a parent disciplines and socializes a child, whereas attachment is an early biological survival drive between an infant and the primary caregiver (mother) (Doinita & Maria, 2015). Attachment experiences directly influence the formation of a sense of self and the behavioral responses that operate within significant relationships. Parenting styles, on the other hand, describe the emotional climate created as parents attempt to socialize their children (Doinita & Maria, 2015; Neal & Frick-Horbury, 2001). The three major parenting styles, as described by Baumrind (1991), indicate three different pathways for child development; however, they are not related to the early attachment internal working models established within the first year of life (Neal & Frick-Horbury, 2001; Whipple et al., 2011). Ultimately, it is the interaction of early attachment and parenting styles that influences perceptions about relationships, self-esteem, and self-discipline (Doinita & Maria, 2015; Neal & Frick-Horbury, 2001).

According to Baumrind (1991), the three parenting styles are authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Authoritative parenting is identified by high responsiveness to the child as well as high demandingness regarding discipline and socialization. Authoritarian parenting occurs when the parent is highly demanding but lacks responsiveness to the child. Contrary to the authoritarian parent, the permissive parent is highly responsive to the child but is also undemanding. Responsiveness is evaluated based on the parents’ ability to recognize the needs of the child and provide support, warmth, and affection. Responsive parenting does not include harsh discipline or excessive criticism. Demandingness describes parental requirements for their children so that they can develop into mature and responsible adults. The establishment of rules and limits and how parents will discipline children if the rules are not met are examples of demandingness.

Children raised by authoritative parents develop self-confidence; they trust that their needs will be met (Baumrind, 1991). Because authoritative parenting is fundamentally responsive, warm, and supportive, children raised by authoritative parents are frequently the same children who formed secure attachments with their primary caregiver (Doinita & Maria, 2015). On the other hand, authoritarian parents tend to display low self-esteem, anger, aggression, and anxiety, traits that are transmitted to their children. This parenting style severely constrains creativity (Fearon et al., 2013). Permissive parents are considered lax, inconsistent, and tend to withdraw their love as a way of punishment. Children raised by permissive parents have low self-control and self-reliance (Baumrind, 1991). Both authoritarian and permissive parenting styles are associated with insecurely attached children (avoidant and ambivalent/resistant), a finding that suggests these parenting styles reflect the parents’ inability to self-regulate emotional responses, consequently promoting the construction of more negative self-views in their children (Doinita & Maria, 2015; Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003). Further, permissive parenting can be viewed as either indulgent or negligent (Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter, & Keehn, 2007). Permissive-negligent parenting style is associated with more avoidant and fearfully attached children (Karavasilis et al., 2003), whereas, indulgent parenting frequently results in children who are more vulnerable to drug addiction and misconduct (Milevsky et al., 2007). More insecurity and decreased self-esteem emerge in the adolescent years when permissive parents withdraw their love as a form of punishment combined with their general negligence. Authoritarian parents who are harsh, controlling, and punitive also provoke more adolescent insecurity and poorer self-esteem (Karavasilis et al., 2003; Milevsky et al., 2007; Box 11.2).

Box 11.2

Baumrind’s Parenting Model (1991)

Parenting style and behavior are powerful influences on the successful trajectory of talented children. In a longitudinal study examining the careers of creative women over a 43-year span, a consistent pattern of parental behavior emerged (Helson, 1999). Compared to creative women who did not maintain a career in the arts, the women who did succeed were parented by mothers who were supportive and sensitive to their needs, although they were often described as frail, dependent, and had low self-esteem. Despite their mothers’ insecurities, the essential variables to foster a secure attachment, support and sensitivity, were present in these mothers. The fathers, on the other hand, were directive, intelligent, and dynamic. These successful women had the opportunity to receive love and security from their mothers while also deriving strength and confidence from the more authoritative parenting provided by their fathers. In a different longitudinal study of artists (Feist & Barron, 2003), the long-term creative success over a 44-year span was associated with the strength and solidity of self-identity established early in life. This sturdy artistic identity was shaped in part by the early recognition of talent in childhood and the ensuing achievements later in life. The successful artists’ careers were influenced by an increased ability to tolerate ambiguity and the employment of psychological mindedness (Feist & Barron, 2003), factors that form within secure/autonomous attachment experiences (Main, 2000).

Ultimately, parenting styles that foster creativity, and the joys inherent in creative experiences, are marked by open acceptance of children’s interests while establishing moderate parental control (Mesurado & de Minzi, 2013). With parental support and acceptance, creative children feel less isolated and lonely (Lim & Smith, 2008). Similar to authoritative parenting styles, when parents are able to balance seemingly contradictory tasks such as establishing rules and limitations while also supporting children’s talents and interests, spending time with the child and yet allowing quiet time for exploration, and holding high expectations but still accepting failure, children are able to acquire the skills needed to succeed in their artistic domain. Such parenting styles are optimal for promoting creativity and nurturing talent (Gute et al., 2008; Tannenbaum, 1992). Generally, parents state that they spend time with their talented children. They explore the interests of the child, offer new information to cultivate their understanding, and share in problem solving tasks. They tend to engage in discourse that is more grammatically correct, infused with more metaphors and imagery, and more abstract complexity and variety (Perrone et al., 2010). These parenting approaches help children manage emotional frustration, tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity, and expand skills and knowledge beyond the limits of formal education. Parents who are most successful at raising talented children provide exposure to talent-promoting activities while ensuring that the child is safely embedded within a family structure (Snowden & Christian, 1999; Tannenbaum, 1992). This parenting approach reinforces the early attachment security of the child while facilitating optimal talent exploration and development (Fig. 11.2).

Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire

The Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001) consists of 62 items and assesses both parenting styles and their underlying subdimensions. The authoritative style consists of four subdimensions: warmth/involvement (11 items), reasoning/induction (7 items), democratic participation (5 items), and good nature/easygoing (4 items). The authoritarian style contains four subdimensions: verbal hostility (four items), corporal punishment (six items), nonreasoning/punitive strategies (six items), and directiveness (four items). The permissive style contains three subdimensions: lack of follow-through (six items), ignoring misbehavior (four items), and self-confidence (five items). The score for each subdimension is calculated on the mean of all items within the subdimension. Each parenting style is calculated by taking the mean of the scores for the subdimensions within each style. Furthermore, the authors also provide, upon request, a G1 version of the scale specifically designed to retrospectively investigate how adolescents or adults were parented during childhood (Olivari, Tagliabue, & Confalonieri, 2013).

Since 1995, several articles (Olivari et al., 2013) have been published providing different uses of the scale, and most of the findings have supported the significant impact of parenting style on children’s adjustment. According to the ways in which the instrument has been applied, different uses of the scale can be described. Only 18.87% of studies used the complete 62-item instrument, whereas the others selected particular items in which the authors were interested. Regarding the dimensions, 54.72% of the authors investigated the three parenting styles measured by the instrument. Furthermore, in 15.09% of the articles, the authors measured only two parenting styles (in five studies, the authoritarian and authoritative styles were investigated; in three studies, the authoritarian and permissive styles were investigated). In 7.55% of the studies, the authoritative style was investigated on its own. The authors of the remaining 20.75% of the studies used the scale to measure some specific subdimensions of parenting styles (i.e., warmth/involvement, corporal punishment, verbal hostility). Only one article (number 8) used the instrument as a retrospective measure (Olivari et al., 2013).

Robinson et al. (2001) scale has been used frequently in the published journal literature and applied to multiple cultural contexts: North America (58.49%), Europe (15.09%), Africa (1.89%), Asia (18.87%), and Oceania (5.66%). Another interesting property of this scale is that it has been used in different ways: In 64.15% of the studies, the authors investigated both maternal and paternal parenting styles through a self-report paradigm. In addition, it appears that the value of this instrument is its adaptability. Through this scale, the researchers were able to evaluate parents’ perception of themselves, adults’ perceptions of their own parents, and offspring’s perceptions of their parents. These different uses of the instrument allow multiple perceptions of the same parenting style, increasing its validity (Olivari et al., 2013).

Parenting Styles and the Emotional Development of Children

Parenting styles refers to the ‘how’ of parenting, that is, how parents interact, discipline, communicate, and respond to the behavior of a child while socializing the child into their group. Baumrind (1991) originally identified two main parenting dimensions, namely acceptance/responsiveness and demandingness/control. These two dimensions are still the subject of much discussion (Rinaldi and Howe, 2012).

Berns (2007c) maintains that parents who are accepting of and responsive to their children tend to give them affection, provide encouragement, and show sensitivity to their needs. Conversely, parents who are unaccepting of and unresponsive to their children tend to reject them, to criticize them, and to be insensitive to their needs. Parents who are demanding and controlling tend to set rules and monitor their children's behavior, while parents who are undemanding and controlling tend to allow their children more autonomy and to make fewer demands on them. Uninvolved parents are neither responsive nor demanding. Four parenting styles emerge from these two dimensions: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved.

Authoritative parents know how to place demands on their children and how to maintain control that is appropriate for their children's age. They are affectionate, communicate clearly, and respond appropriately to the needs of their children. They know how to balance demandingness and responsiveness. They also set clear standards for and monitor their children's behavior effectively (Alegre, 2011).

The authoritative parent–child relationship is characterized by warmth and monitoring resulting in generally higher levels of self-competence, self-esteem, social competence, and academic success in their children. It is also reported that lower levels of internalizing (e.g., depression, withdrawal, anxiety, somatization) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, attention problems, hyperactivity) occur in these children. Warm and supportive parents are regarded as good resources for their children that lead to positive developmental outcomes (Camp, 2012; Rinaldi and Howe, 2012).

Parent–child relationships characterized by warmth are also related to higher levels of emotional sensitivity, perspective taking (i.e., being aware of and understanding other people's situations), and prosocial behaviors (i.e., sharing and donating resources, comforting others, volunteering for charitable activities, and helping the needy) (Carlo et al., 2010).

Children of authoritative parents tend to outscore children from the other three parenting styles on measures of adjustment, attachment, resilience, school achievement, social and school competence, and prosocial behavior (Alegre, 2012).

Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and not to question or challenge their authority. They are status driven, demanding, and often unresponsive to the needs of their children. Communication between these parents and their children is generally limited (Camp, 2012).

Authoritarian parents are strict and controlling. This, together with the high demands they place on their children, may result in behavior outcomes characterized by high levels of anger and self-centeredness. Disciplinary practices such as verbal scolding and physical punishment often also lead to aggressive tendencies and antisocial behavior (Camp, 2012).

Parental demandingness is a complex phenomenon marked by positive as well as negative responsiveness. Positive responsiveness includes monitoring and supervision, control, autonomy granting, making/having age appropriate demands, and expectations, and applying inductive discipline. This is often associated with higher academic functioning, life satisfaction, confidence, and prosocial behavior with less risk-taking behavior. Negative responsiveness includes psychological control and inconsistent, punitive and harsh discipline. The result is often higher internalizing and externalizing behaviors and cognitive anxiety with also a higher risk of personality disorders (Alegre, 2011).

Permissive and neglectful parents make few demands on and exercise little control over their children. Permissive parents are often responsive to and affectionate toward their children while neglectful or uninvolved parents often show little affection toward and rarely communicate with their children (Alegre, 2011).

The behavior outcomes of children with permissive parents seem to correlate strongly with poor self-reliance and self-control with a greater tendency toward impulsive and aggressive behavior and poor exploration behavior. The children of uninvolved parents tend to experience deficits in attachment, cognition, and emotional and social skills. They also often exhibit poor self-control and low self-esteem (Berns, 2007a).

2.4.7 Parents, Parenting, and Restricting Access to the Vehicle

Research suggests that parenting style is important with regard to teen driving behaviors. Parents who are described as authoritative (high support and high control) are associated with half the crash risk among their teenage children and are also associated with fewer risk-taking behaviors compared to parents who described as uninvolved (low support and low control) (Ginsburg et al., 2009). One specific action parents can take is to limit primary access to vehicles. Compared with teens who share access to vehicles, primary access is associated with significantly increased crash risk and prevalence of unsafe driving behaviors, such as speeding and cell phone use while driving (Garcia-Espana, Ginsburg, Durbin, Elliott, & Winston, 2009).

Parent–teen agreements can serve as an effective structure for managing these risks (Simons-Morton, Hartos, & Beck, 2004; Simons-Morton, Hartos, Leaf, & Preusser, 2005). A body of work by Simons-Morton and others demonstrates promising results when parents limit exposure to challenging driving situations (e.g., driving with passengers, at night, or on high-speed roads) for new drivers and gradually increase privileges over time. These agreements serve to reinforce and enhance graduated driver licensing laws.

Parenting and Prosocial Behavior in a Cross-Cultural Context: An Integration

Theorists have suggested two possible nonexclusive effects of culture on parenting and prosocial behavior.

First, the parenting styles and practices have different meaning for children's prosocial development in different cultural contexts (Kağitçibaşi, 1996). The same behavior on the part of parents conveys different meanings to children in different cultures.

Although the above description of the Western-Protestant idea about the child's inborn nature as ‘selfish’ and the human ‘need for autonomy’ is overly schematic, it is used here to exemplify how cultural ideas about the human nature are shaping theoretical as well as applied approaches to parenting and prosocial development. For example, the notion that we are born selfish has implication for when and how we will expect prosocial behaviors to develop (Hoffman, 1975, 1982) and when we will begin to teach empathy and altruism as described earlier. On the other hand, the focus on the need for autonomy specifies that one may not enforce rules and norms if one wants to be successful in making children compassionate and kind. The implicit idea that humans are born selfish and as autonomous individuals not only implies which will be the most appropriate parenting style, but also prescribes the kind of prosocial behaviors one may observe and the motivations underlying them, and it even can serve to explain and predict the developmental course of prosocial behavior (i.e., from a self-oriented to an other-oriented prosociality) we have been observing.

Taking culture into account can help explain when Western white middle class parents, who model prosocial behavior and explain why rules are necessary rather than impose them, have children who are more prosocial than parents who use power-assertive means of socialization (e.g., Krevans and Gibbs, 1996).

In contrast to what has been found to promote and explain prosocial behavior among Western middle class offspring, research has consistently shown that Chinese parents are directive and controlling in their parenting style, rooted in the belief that rigorous and responsible teaching is reflecting high involvement with and love for their children (e.g., Chao, 1994; Wu et al., 2002). Chao (1994) has explained two culturally based concepts of parental control: ‘chiao shun’ and ‘guanc.’ ‘Chiao shun’ means ‘training children in appropriate behaviors’ (Chao, 1994). ‘Guan’ literally means ‘to govern.’ ‘Guan’ has a very positive connotation for the Chinese because it also can mean ‘to love’ or ‘to care for.’ Children interpret parents' firm control as an expression of their parents' care and concern. This explains why Chinese children of parents with an authoritarian parenting style may develop to share at least as willingly as American children raised with a democratic parenting style (Rao and Stewart, 1999).

Mayan parents in Mexico allow their children to decide how much to eat and sleep, whether to take medicine, and whether to go to school (Greenfield, 1999), which would be classifiable as indulgent or permissive parenting style according to Baumrind's (1971) typology, but according to Mosier and Rogoff (2003), this does not result in the above-mentioned confusion regarding societies' norms and expectations. Already by the age of 5 years, Mayan Mexican children share and care for their younger siblings, something that European-American kindergarteners are developmentally not even expected to do, and they do so in the absence of the guiding eyes of their mothers.

Thus, parental beliefs about the nature of development seem to be both the foundation and the initiator of many parent–child outcomes and they play an important role in explaining parental socialization practices and outcomes (Harkness and Super, 2006). Understanding parents' ethnotheories about their children is key to understanding the strategies parents use to help their children grow up to become successful members of their communities.

The second effect of culture on the relationship between parenting and prosocial behavior may be that cultural differences in parental socialization are the means by which cultural differences in prosocial tendencies arise (Knight et al., 1982; Whiting and Whiting, 1973). Cross-cultural perspectives on development assume that cultural emphases on particular values and socialization toward these values have an accelerating influence on the development in specific domains (Greenfield et al., 2003; Keller, 2007; Rothbaum et al., 2000b). It has been reported that in some cultures such as in West Africa, prosocial behavior is encouraged as early as infancy (e.g., infants are offered objects and then encouraged to return the gifts) to foster sharing and exchange norms believed to bind the social group together (Nsamenang, 1992).

Westerners may value prosocial acts that appear to be based on endogenous motivation more than do people from traditional cultures, whereas people from traditional cultures value prosocial actions that reflect responsiveness to others' stated needs and reciprocal obligations (Jacobsen, 1983), and this may result in different motivations and forms of prosocial behaviors.

Culture has not necessarily an influence on the existence of universal psychological and developmental phenomena but it influences their expression. Keller and Kaertner (2012) explain “Human behavior and experience are profoundly influenced by species-specific, panhuman psychological mechanisms that evolved as adaptations to solve particular challenges that our ancestors faced” (p. 66).

The profound human capacity to adapt to environmental challenges and constraints implies that development cannot be universal across different contexts. Moreover, as illustrated in the case of prosocial behavior, universal psychological processes are insufficient to explain the variety of forms in which human prosociality can be encountered. Culture is the framework that may allow us to predict the culture-specific expression of this ‘panhuman’ relationship.

10.08.4.2.2 Childrearing

Cultural differences in childrearing, parenting styles, and socialization practices are significant and often reflect the conditions (e.g., economics, work demands) and values (e.g., independence vs. dependence) of the culture in which they are formed (Matsumoto, 1994). For example, Mexican-American and Puerto Rican parents value family closeness and thus often socialize their children to be obedient and respectful and to prefer familial support over self-reliance (e.g., Zayas & Solari, 1994). As another example, Caucasian American mothers are more likely than African-American or Haitian mothers to use modeling and reassurance to help their children cope with fearful situations; Haitian mothers are more likely than either Caucasian American or African-American mothers to use force when their children confront anxiety-producing stimuli (Reyes, Routh, Jean-Gilles, Sanfilippo, & Fawcett, 1991). These differential parenting patterns could be construed as mothers using parenting styles that encourage adaptive survival in their home country.

The structure of the family affects child-rearing and caregiving practices. In Euroamerican culture, the primary responsibility for childrearing has been the purview of the mother, and more recently the parental dyad, while in many non-Anglo-American cultures, children have been raised by extended family members (e.g., grandparents, aunts, and uncles) older siblings, nannies, wet nurses, or in group settings (e.g., kibbutz) (Matsumoto, 1994; McGoldrick et al., 1996). For example, African-American children living in poverty are often raised in multigenerational families in which maternal grandmothers are the primary care-givers. Frequently, these grandmothers coreside with their daughter and her children, often with no adult male in the home (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990). Although this family constellation differs from what has been considered the typical American family (i.e., heterosexual, married parents, who coreside with their biological children), it is often associated with healthy African-American child and family development (Canino & Spurlock, 1994; Wilson, 1989). In addition, a significant percentage of minority single-parent families are successful (Lindblad-Goldberg, 1989). As another example, in a number of cultures (e.g., Latino, Filipino), godparents serve as important models for young children and as sources of support for the young child's parents (Matsumoto, 1994). Although the composition of the extended family varies across groups, extended family networks are all characterized by a sharing of resources, emotional support, and caregiving responsibilities (Matsumoto, 1994).

In addition to cross-cultural differences in the identity of the primary caretaker(s), there are variations between cultures in terms of how caretaking occurs and the values communicated to young children within the family. These variations reflect differences in both beliefs regarding childrearing and in standards of living (e.g., family economic status, country of origin). In many Western European cultures, teaching some independence early is emphasized. Toddlers are raised in their own rooms, some crying is tolerated so the child learns not to cry manipulatively, strong verbal feedback during childhood is accepted, and the reward–punishment system emphasizes the gain or loss of possessions or privileges (Matsumoto, 1994). In many other cultures (e.g., Asian-American, African-American, Native-American) communicating a value on dependence and interdependence is emphasized (Matsumoto, 1994). For some, the young child may sleep in the parents' bed for several years and may be breast fed until age three or four. Often in cultures in which dependence and interdependence are emphasized, crying is not tolerated and thus may result in positive (e.g., picking up, cuddling) or negative (e.g., spanking) attention, disrespect in the form of talking back to elders (parental figures) is unacceptable, and the reward-punishment system frequently means the presence or absence of corporal consequences (e.g., Greek-American, Puerto Rican). These differential rearing and parenting practices prepare youth to live in the cultural context in which they are embedded.

Interventions involving parents

A strong adult protective shield for young people decreases their risk for HIV infection (Petersen et al., 2005). While different parenting styles and practices have been linked to decreased risk, little information is available regarding the parenting styles and practices within an African context that would protect adolescents from HIV risk. Few HIV/AIDS interventions targeted at young people involve parents directly, and those that have included parents in school-based approaches have met with little success. A community-based intervention that specifically targets parents and their young pre-adolescent children in improving communication especially around HIV/AIDS, such as that implemented by (Bhana et al., 2004), could provide some direction for interventions with older adolescents. Brook and colleagues (2006) found that stressors such as poverty increase difficulty in the parent–child relationship, and future interventions that incorporate parents should include components that will improve the quality of parents’ lives as well as young people's lives, through improved knowledge and skills pertaining to the various challenges they may face – such as parent–child interactions, discipline, and stress management.

The challenged family constructions within the African context where female-headed households are often the norm (Preston-Whyte and Zondi, 1992), or where both parents are absent because they have died of AIDS or are migrant workers, will necessitate innovative use of supportive social relationships for youth.

Multicomponent Interventions

Drug use is not a single-dimensional behavior, meaning that multiple influences might cause someone to initiate drug use. Characteristics of one's parents and parenting style, selected peer groups, key adult role models, mass media, and community policies are all related to drug use. Environmental characteristics, such as access to alcohol and drugs, unsupervised time, and peer pressure further complicate the etiology of illicit drug use. Therefore, a number of prevention programs have been identified as ‘multicomponent,’ or using more than one of the aforementioned three models to target and prevent illicit drug use among youth.

One example of an effective multicomponent drug use prevention program was implemented in 27 Native American community elementary schools (Schinke et al., 2000). Each school was randomly assigned to one of three arms: (1) cultural content only; (2) cultural content and cognitive-behavioral skills training; and (3) cultural content, cognitive behavioral skills training, and community mobilization, media releases, and community involvement in the intervention. Each of the groups received ‘cultural content,’ or Native American stories, legends, and values lessons that addressed substance use issues and general health promotion. The cognitive-behavioral skills training condition included 15 one-hour sessions, which trained youth on modeling, resistance, and behavioral refusal skills tailored to substance use prevention. The intervention was tailored to the contemporary Native American culture. The final arm of the intervention included community members, including youth's families, teachers, school guidance counselors, residents, law enforcement officials, and owners/managers of community businesses frequented by youth. Evaluations of this project have shown that the youth who participated in the intervention study had lower rates of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use than those who did not receive the cognitive-behavioral intervention. The community intervention arm, however, did not have any additional benefit on substance use compared to the cognitive-behavioral intervention.

General Child-Rearing Climate and Style

The affective and motivational climate created by parents can influence youths' motivation in direct and indirect ways. One of the most widely studied aspects of general climate is parenting style. In the United States, well-adjusted youth are most likely to have parents who use an authoritative parenting style, which is characterized by appropriate levels of warmth and structure, compared to other parenting styles (Steinberg et al., 1991). However, the meaning and impact of parenting styles varies across ethnic groups, cultures, and neighborhood contexts (Chao, 2001).

Recently scholars have examined other aspects of the general family climate and parenting. One such dimension is autonomy support versus control (Grolnick, 2003). From a self-determination perspective, a sense of autonomy and lack of feeling controlled are crucial for engagement and learning (Ryan and Deci, 2002). Autonomy-supportive parents allow children to explore their own environment, to initiate their own behavior, to take an active role in solving their own problems, and to express their points of view (Raftery et al., 2012). In contrast, controlling parents exert pressure to regulate children's behaviors through commands, directives, or love withdrawal; deny their children chances to solve problems; and ignore their points of view (Pomeranz et al., 2007). A growing body of research demonstrates the benefits of parental autonomy support for children's motivation and engagement (Raftery et al., 2012). Autonomy support seems to be particularly important for low-achieving children (Ng et al., 2004).

The affective and motivational climate, or the general warmth shared by parent and child can also influence the extent to which a child internalizes the teachings and advice from parents (Grolnick, 2003). A negative emotional climate or a controlling environment can alter the influence of parents' supportive behaviors. For example, mothers' academic support actually had negative consequences for youth who did not share a warm relationship (Simpkins et al., 2006).