Craig H. Hart, Ph.D.

I have spent much of the past two decades in the academic and practical study of children’s development in the context of the family. This interest was primarily kindled by the birth of our first child twenty years ago, and is ongoing as my wife and I are working hard to help assure that things turn out well for each of our four children. Like most parents, there are some days that I wonder how I got myself into this child-rearing business. A couple of years ago I announced to my children that I might write a book on parenting and was wondering if they would mind if I shared some stories about them. After a few snickers, my now 17-year-old promptly announced that he was sure he could do a much better job of it. Why, it would be far more entertaining for people to read stories about his dad, “the child development expert” and his attempts at parenting. Needless to say, the book is not yet written. Although humorous, I mention this first because for me, my own parenting attempts and family relationships have provided the best laboratory for understanding more about how parenting is associated with child and adolescent development. Although there have been some challenges along the road and a realization that there are never any guarantees, all of our children appear to be headed towards rich and fulfilling lives as they grow towards adulthood.

Speaking of challenges, over the past decade or so we have witnessed a growing chorus of scholarly voices in North American settings suggesting that parents matter relatively little in children’s lives (e.g., Harris, 1995; 1998; Rowe, 1994; Scarr, 1992; Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). In preparation for this talk, I asked my 17-year old son what he thought about this notion. He quickly replied, “That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How are kids suppose to learn how to get along in life without instruction from their parents?” I agree and view the perspective that parents don’t matter as a serious threat to children’s well-being. Parents and societies who buy into this perspective will be more likely to abdicate important responsibilities that are vital to fostering healthy development in children.

I would like to begin my remarks by critiquing four of what I believe to be erroneous conclusions about parenting and family life that have been recently published in leading scholarly outlets. These have attracted widespread publicity in the North American media. Rather than entertaining, I have chosen instead to use my time here to present some scholarly facts that I hope will be helpful in combating the myth that parents don’t matter. The tone of my comments from here on is serious, and reflect my view that these erroneous conclusions are dangerous. They call into question time-tested values and views that good parenting and natural family structures are important for children’s development. I believe that holding onto the view that parents do matter is vital to the well-being of individuals and nations throughout the world. The four erroneous  views that I will consider in the allotted time are as follows:

1. Married heterosexual parents (mothers and fathers) are not essential for children.

2. Fathers and mothers don’t make unique contributions to children’s development.

3. There is no evidence that parenting is reflected in child behavior outside of the home.

4. Genetics and peers matter, not parents.

Following a presentation of my views on these matters,  I will briefly discuss specific ways scientific research has shown that parents do matter in the lives of children and adolescents. 

Married heterosexual parents don’t matter

This conclusion is well illustrated by a scholarly review article that was published in American Psychologist earlier this year (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). The stated goal of the authors is to encourage “public policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family structure, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent heterosexual, married family (p. 399).” The authors’ arguments stem from a study of 200 fathers from 10 different subcultures within the United States. Based on their observations and a review of research deemed to support their view, the authors conclude that mothers and fathers living together in a committed marital relationship is not essential for healthy child development. They note that as long as children have a consistent adult in their lives who is emotionally connected to them, there are a wide variety of family structures that can support positive child outcomes. This includes cohabiting couples, single mothers, and gay and lesbian parents.

My view, however, is that there is a body of rebutting scientific evidence indicating that “natural family” structures which include married mothers and fathers living under the same roof are more likely to provide more stable and secure environments for children to flourish in (see Heaton, 1999). Research has documented that natural family structures benefit nearly every aspect of children’s well-being. This includes greater educational opportunities, better emotional and physical health, less substance abuse, and lower incidences of early sexual activity for girls, and less delinquency for boys (e.g., Harris, Furstenburg, & Marmer, 1998; Waite, 1995).

In contrast, there is ample evidence suggesting that some alternative family structures can do more harm than good. For example, U.S. data gathered in 1995 indicates that only 10 percent of children under age18 in families with two married parents lived in poverty. Contrast this with 50 percent who lived with an unmarried mother (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). I realize that most single mothers are not in this situation by choice and do the best they can. Many are, for the most part, understaffed in terms of having someone else to rely on in helping meet all of the obligations entailed in parenting. Despite overwhelming challenges, I am impressed by how many single parents make things work out. The point I want to make here is that, contrary to arguments suggesting that single parenting is as optimal as any other family structure for child-rearing (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999), the data on average suggests that married parents are in the best position to protect their children from poverty. This is particularly important since poverty is a defining predictor of child academic and social problems, particularly when it is accompanied by frequent changes in residence and multiple intimate adult relationships (Ackerman et al., 1999).

In light of evidence suggesting that marriage is more likely to protect children from poverty, another angle taken by some academicians is to argue that it is the poverty and not just having a single parent that poses the greatest risk for children (e.g., Harris, 1998; McLoyd, 1998; Silverstein & Auerbach,1999). However, this argument overlooks a significant pool of data suggesting that although the consequences of poverty and having a single parent are interrelated, each is a risk factor that has independent effects on negative outcomes in children (Bronfenbrenner et al., 1996; Mayer, 1997).

Fathers and Mothers Don’t Make Unique Contributions to Child Development

Another angle that some anti-heterosexual marriage proponents take is downplaying the importance of fathers in facilitating positive child development (Silverstein & Auerbach 1999). Therefore, most of my discussion here will center on father influence. Fundamental to the argument of these proponents is that men and women do not make unique contributions to children’s lives. For example, it is suggested  that because father absence is associated with other family instability indicators (including less family income), it is more likely that negative child developmental outcomes are due to the disruption of children’s lives, rather than simply to the absence of their fathers. In fact, one study cited in the American Psychologist paper suggests that there are potential costs to father presence in the home due to greater likelihood that some fathers spend family financial resources on gambling, booze, and cigarettes, resulting in “increased women’s workload and stress levels (p. 403).” My question to this is, do we throw away fathers just because of a few bad apples?

Opposing evidence indicates that the single most important factor that is more relevant than family income for diminishing delinquent behavior is the presence of the father in the home. In fact, data shows that delinquency is twice as high in cases where the father is absent than when he is present (Comanor & Phillips, 1998). Other recent supporting research suggests that even after taking into account a wide variety of factors, including race, income, residential instability, urban location, and so forth, fatherless boys were still found to be twice as likely as boys living with two parents to be incarcerated (Harper & McLanahan, 1998). It should be noted that boyfriends do not seem to be the solution to absent biological fathers either. Recent evidence suggests that delinquency rates are lower when the mother is alone with her son than when she has invited another man to live with her (Comanor & Phillips, 1998).

When downplaying the importance of fathers, notably missing from arguments presented in the recent American Psychologist paper is a significant body of research indicating that fathers are more oriented towards being physically playful with their children than mothers (Parke, 1996; Isley, O’Neil, Clatfelter, & Parke, l999). Fathers eliciting more positive and less negative emotion from children during play has been shown to help children learn to read social cues and regulate their emotions in ways that can result in more positive social adjustment with peers (Carson & Parke, 1996; Parke et al., 1992; 1994). Fathers being patient and understanding of children’s emotions lends itself to similar positive social outcomes (see Parke, 1996). Interestingly, studies have shown stronger links in these regards for fathers than for mothers (see Parke, 1996; Isley, O’Neil & Parke, 1996). Findings from recent research that we conducted in Russia support these conclusions. Greater playfulness, patience, and understanding with children on the part of fathers was associated with less child aggressive behavior with peers at school. Our statistical analyses showed that father effects outweighed mother effects in this regard, again illustrating relatively stronger father influence in the playful domain of parent-child interaction (Hart, Nelson et al., 1998).

There are many other ways besides reducing poverty and being playful and responsive that fathers provide unique contributions to children’s development (e.g., Blankenhorn, 1995; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, in press; Harris et al., 1998; Hawkins & Palkovitz, 1999; Lamb, 1997; Popenoe, 1996). For example, father presence can provide daughters with a stable relationship with a non-exploitive adult male who loves and respects them. Security and trust derived from this relationship helps girls avoid precocious sexual activity and exploitive relationships with other males (see Blankenhorn, 1995). In light of the data at hand, many scholars have concluded that fathers contribute to core aspects of children’s stability, self confidence, self-regulation, and self-identities in profound ways.

In other domains of parent-child interaction, mothers seem to matter more (Hojat, 1998). For example, in a study we conducted in Louisiana, we found stronger mother effects for children’s prosocial behavior relative to fathers in the domain of reasoning with children about consequences for their actions (Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992). Children who had more reasoning-oriented mothers engaged in more prosocial, cooperative play with peers. They were also more accepted by peers. Taken together, these findings suggest that mothers and fathers do indeed make unique contributions to children’s development.

Parenting Makes no Difference in Children’s Behavior Outside of the Home.

A recent highly publicized critique of developmental research on parenting has concluded that there is no evidence that parenting in the home is related to ways children behave outside of the home (Harris, 1995; 1998 pp. 75-77; 296; 330). Newsweek as well as other prominent media outlets ran cover stories on this landmark conclusion. I was surprised by this, probably because my own research has been focused on this issue. Scientific studies have demonstrated that children’s social development, as associated with parenting styles, is critical for optimal growth in children. Children who have social skill deficiencies that stem from poor parenting have been shown to be at risk for a host of academic, emotional, and behavioral difficulties throughout their lives (e.g., Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).

Does parenting carry over into child behavior outside the home? Studies that I and many other social scientists have conducted indicate that parenting plays a vital role in how socially adjusted children are outside the home (e.g., Hart et al., 1998; Hart et al., 1990; 1992ab). In fact, if parenting doesn’t matter, why do numerous intervention studies show that positive changes in parenting behavior are reflected in corresponding changes in how children interact with others inside and outside of the home (e.g., Patterson, 1986; Patterson, et al., 1989; Tremblay et al., 1992; Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997; Vuchinich, et al., 1992; Yoshikawa, 1994)?

In two recent scholarly reviews of scientific investigations on parenting, we have also identified scores of studies illustrating how what goes on in parenting carries over into how children interact with peers (see Hart & Newell, in press; Hart, Olsen, Robinson, & Mandleco, 1997). For example, parents who are more coercive tend to have children who are more coercive and aggressive with peers. Parents who are more warm and responsive tend to have children who are more cooperative and sociable with peers.

However, the critique of developmental research on parenting doesn’t stop with parent-peer group linkages and is criticized for methodological reasons in at least three other major ways (see Harris, 1998). First, this line of scholarship is denounced for shared method variance problems (e.g., parents reporting on their own behavior as well as their child’s). However, the majority of studies that we recently reviewed used different informants for measuring parenting and peer group behavior in ways that overcome this proported flaw (see Hart & Newell, in press). Findings regarding parenting-peer group linkages are remarkably consistent across studies that use observational or self-report measures of parenting and teacher or observational ratings of child social behavior (cf. Hart, Nelson et al., 1998).

Second, the developmental research is also criticized for not documenting the direction of effect (whether parents influence children or children influence parents). Yet, we identified at least16 major longitudinal investigations conducted over the past decade that were not considered in this critique (e.g., Booth et al., 1994; Bronstein et al., 1996; Carlson, 1998; Kochanska et al., 1995; McFadyen-Ketchum et al., 1996; Pettit, Bates & Dodge, 1997). Results of these studies clearly indicate that parents have lasting influence on children’s behavior outside of the home in ways that are reflected in independent measures of parenting and peer group interaction. These studies suggest that direction of effect can go from parent to child, at least in terms of parental influence maintaining child behavioral patterns.

Third, developmental research on parenting is also criticized by suggesting that socialization effects can only be artificially contrived in diverse rather than in homogenous samples that include, for example, similar socioeconomic groupings of parents and children rather than mixed socioeconomic groupings (Harris, 1998). However, numerous studies that myself and others have conducted in homogenous groupings discount this claim (e.g., Barber et al., in press; Baumrind, 1993; 1997; Hart et al., 1992; Hart, Nelson, et al., 1998; Shumow, et al., 1998). For example, research indicates that coercive parenting is associated with similar types of child peer-group behavior problems in middle class samples as well as in disadvantaged samples. In light of all of this, my question is, how were scores of studies published in leading scientific outlets showing linkages between parenting and out-of-home behavior so overlooked in the recent highly publicized critique of parenting research? These studies take into account many of  the proported methodology flaws that have been used to discredit this line of work. This is indeed puzzling and alarming.

Genetics and Peers Matter, Not Parents

Scholars’ conclusions as to how much parents matter in children’s lives range from the view that optimal parenting is vital (e.g., Baumrind, 1993; 1997; Gottman & DeClaire, 1997) to the perspective that an “average expectable” environment provided by parents is all that is necessary for most children (Scarr, 1992; Rowe, 1994) to the notion that parents are not essential to children’s development (Harris, 1995; 1998). With regard to the latter view, one of the major arguments against parenting having any influence in children’s lives stems from the notion that only genetics and peers matter. Whatever genetics isn’t accounting for in development should be attributed to peer group influence, not to parents (Harris, 1998). I have no problem with the notion that genetics and peers matter. As I will illustrate, however, it is my belief that parents provide far more influence than they have recently been given credit for. 

Peers. Lets begin with peer group influence. Although a scientific understanding of exactly how peers socialize peers is limited (e.g., McDougal et al., in press), I have no problem with the notion that peers influence other children’s language development, clothing choices, and many other aspects of their lives. However, drawing from a paper that I co-authored (Ladd, Profilet, & Hart, 1992), it is suggested in the recent critique of parenting that the only power parents have to determine their child’s life course is in deciding what neighborhood they will live in and where their child will go to school. In this way, parents indirectly choose their child’s peers who will ultimately determine how their child turns out (Harris, 1998; pp. 335-338). However, the greater portion of our paper was overlooked that focused on ways parents do matter by having a direct influence on who their children play with and how they interact with peers. Our subsequent work has shown that proactive parental involvement in initiating, planning, and supervising peer contacts with young children is associated with social developmental outcomes in a variety of cultural settings including China, Russia, and the United States (e.g., Hart, Yang et al. 1998; Ladd & Hart, 1992).

It is also advocated that by the time children reach the age of ten or so, parents have no control over peer group influence (Harris, 1998, p. 337). Peers are in total control by then for good or for ill. There is indeed scientific evidence suggesting that adolescents do choose friends who can influence them in positive or negative ways (e.g., Berndt & Keefe, 1995). However, I am not aware of any studies that suggest parental influence does not come into play. In fact, recent research has reached quite the opposite conclusion. Parents who are emotionally connected with their teens, set regulatory limits, and foster autonomy in teen decision making tend to have adolescents who are more careful in their selection of peers. This, in turn, has been found to be a strong deterrent to delinquent behavior (Top & Chadwick, 1998; 1999). Alternatively, negative parenting that includes lack of peer monitoring appears to work through deviant peer associations to produce antisocial behavior (Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999).

Genetics. What about genetic influences? Scientific evidence drawn from molecular genetic, behavioral genetic, and child temperament research suggests that children come into the world with tendencies towards aggression, shyness, sociability, impulsiveness, higher or lower activity and emotionality levels, and even religiosity (see Hart & Newell, in press; Plomin & Rutter, 1998; Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Schmitz et al., 1999; Wachs in press). It is my belief that many of these tendencies stem from spiritual predispositions as well (see Newell, Hart, & Sine, in press). The apostle Paul noted this in the New Testament when he spoke of the diversity of spiritual gifts and weaknesses or “uncomely parts” that individuals have (see 1 Cor. 12). 

Given different inborn predispositions, children have long been thought to influence their child-rearing environment in a variety of different ways (Scarr & McCartney, 1983; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Because of this, it has been suggested that children to some degree “select, modify, and even create their environments” (Plomin et al. 1994). For example, children by their very natures can evoke different parenting patterns for different siblings in the same family (e.g., Holden & Miller, 1999; Kandel & Wu, 1995; Sanson & Rothbart, 1995; Volling & Elins, 1999). This was illustrated in a recent study which found that adopted children who are at genetic risk for antisocial behavior are more likely to evoke more negative parenting from their adoptive parents (O’Connor, et al.,1998). Another recent study suggests that children with inhibited temperaments are more likely to evoke more overprotective parenting in ways that serves to maintain shy and withdrawn behavior (Rubin, Nelson et al., in press). Yet other studies suggest that sociable children are more likely to evoke more parental encouragement for pursuing peer group interests (Profilet & Ladd, 1994). However, children are not in total control over parents by any means. Research also suggests that children and parents likely respond to and modify the behavior of the other, illustrating that parent-child interactions are dynamic and transactional in nature (cf. Bell & Chapman, 1986; Dumas & Lafreniere, 1995; Kuczynski & Lollis, in press; Lytton, 1990; Kandel & Wu, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Nix et al., 1999).

For understanding how specific gene constellations are associated with different child behaviors that play out in all of this, molecular genetics research focuses on identifying new genes, discovering their effects, and determining how they effect development (Plomin, 1994). Genetic predispositions are by no means deterministic. Molecular geneticists point out that most personality characteristics are due to a highly complex interplay between multi-factorial genetic and environmental influences. Genetic markers discovered by molecular geneticists thus far account for only a small proportion of variance in certain child behaviors (Plomin & Rutter, 1998). However, gene mapping that is ongoing should increase our understanding of all of this over the next decade or so. Although this new knowledge will be exciting and useful in many ways, it will be limited. Even if we come to know with certainty the behavioral probabilities for behavioral risk or childhood abilities associated with certain constellations of genes, we still would likely not know why some individuals are able to override certain biological tendencies and others are not. This would be particularly important in terms of understanding how individuals exercise their own agency with regard to the extent to which they might choose to be influenced by peers or other factors.

A less direct but viable way of assessing genetic influence is through behavioral genetic research. Behavioral genetic theory suggests that variation among individuals can be due to both genetic and environmental sources (Rowe, 1994).  Results of behavioral genetic studies using twin or adoption methods (for example, studying identical twins reared apart in different homes) typically suggest that many personality characteristics can be partially accounted for by genetic factors (e.g., Schmitz, et al., 1999).

Environmental sources that touch individuals in unique ways is referred to as non-shared environment effects. These factors are not specified in behavioral genetic studies and could be due to parental or peer influences that help make children turn out different. As previously noted, genetic factors can vary considerably across siblings in the same family. Genetic predispositions can elicit different responses from parents in ways that result in different child outcomes. Or they can serve to predispose children towards responding to similar environmental influences in different ways.  This represents two different ways that parental treatment can result in non-shared effects.

An example of parental treatment that might result in non-shared effects could include a more spirited child eliciting rules and enforcement from parents in an effort to regulate behavior more than their more conforming sibling does (cf. Pike & Plomin, 1997). However, parents may still try to interact with both children in warm and nurturing ways. In response, the extra rules for the one child may evoke more oppositional behavior directed towards the parent from the difficult child than from the easy-going sibling. Likewise, warmth and nurturance may be interpreted by a more difficult child as licence to get away with whatever they want, while the more conforming sibling may respond to this by being even more open to parental input and direction.

Peer effects might also be assumed in this non-shared effects category. For example, when  playing baseball with the same group of peers, a more athletically inclined child who performs better will more likely evoke more positive reactions from peers than the sibling who can’t catch the ball whenever it comes their way. This differential experience with the same peers may generate  more self-confidence in one sibling and greater feelings of inadequacy in the other. Even if the peers respond similarly to both siblings and are tolerant and affirming towards the less athletic prone child, he or she may still feel less adequate due to perceptions of their own athletic skill.

Environmental sources that operate to make siblings alike are referred to as shared environment effects. This could include parental and peer behavior that has a similar effect on children, or differential treatment of children that yields similar outcomes. For example, research suggests that siblings are more likely to adopt the religious and political orientations of their parents, despite their different personalities (e.g., Hoffman, 1991; 1994; Plomin, 1990). Likewise, the tolerant behavior and encouragement of peers may inspire confidence and greater success in playing baseball for a less athletic child. This may eventually serve to help him or her become more athletic like their sibling. Even children being treated differently can result in similar outcomes. For example, rather than creating more oppositional behavior for one sibling versus another, more rules and limit setting for a difficult child may serve to foster more conformance in ways similar to their already easy-going sibling. Likewise, less tolerance by peers may serve to inspire a less athletically inclined sibling to work harder to be accepted by them. These examples serve to illustrate that both peers and family can contribute to both shared and non-shared effects.

Here is the point. Non-shared environmental influence shows up in all behavioral genetic studies. In the critique of parenting research, sibling differences reflected in non-shared effects were attributed only to forces outside the family, namely peers (Harris, 1998). It should be kept in mind that classical behavioral genetic designs can only say that sibling similarities are primarily due to genetics. However, the root causes of sibling differences are unspecified. Contrary to the assumption that only peers matter beyond genetics, this leaves ample room for the importance of parents as contributors to child outcomes as well. Also, behavioral genetic research doesn’t suggest that parents don’t matter. Rather it only indicates many things that parents do similarly with siblings often do not make sibling personalities the same.

In essence, even though children may share constellations of genes and somewhat similar environments with their parents, siblings, and peers, their very natures can create different environmental niches that can contribute to declining resemblance over time (see Wachs, in press). Depending on temperamental characteristics and other factors such as birth order, the ages of siblings, and exposure to peers, children in the same family can experience “non-shared” aspects of their child-rearing environments (e.g., Plomin et al., 1997; Mcgue, Sharma, & Benson, 1996; Pike et al., 1996). Even identical twins who share the same genetic attributes do not turn out to be entirely similar due to different sets of experiences from which they build their environmental niches (e.g., Bouchard et al. 1990; Farber, 1981). Despite the influence of genes, I don’t believe for a minute that parents are not vitally important in children’s lives. Here is why.

How do Parents Matter?

In the recent highly publicized critique of parenting research that concluded parents don’t matter, it was declared that children and parents resemble each other for genetic reasons only. Cordial parents have cordial children and difficult parents have difficult children (Harris, pp. 24-25; 31; 308-309). In my view, this is far too simplistic of an explanation. It has been my experience that some difficult parents have cordial children and that some cordial parents have difficult children. Similar to the conclusion I have reached, it was also noted in this critique of parenting research that siblings in the same family who have the same parents are likely to have quite different personalities. If so, how do parents matter given that different child personalities may exert differential influences on their socialization environment in ways that make children different (e.g., Bell & Chapman, 1986; Sameroff, in press)? Let me suggest three specific ways.

First, by teaching morals and values. It is critical to note here that there is scientific evidence indicating that shared family influences, stemming from parental modeling and encouragement of the same moral, religious, and political interests and values in the home, are as important or even more important than genes in creating likenesses between brothers and sisters (e.g., Hoffman, 1991, 1994; Plomin, 1990). Thus, the vital role of parents in teaching children moral and religious values to help them make wise choices in the face of their own biological proclivities or peer group pressure cannot be underestimated (Top & Chadwick, 1998; 1999; Newell & Hart, in press). This evidence tends to be overlooked by proponents of the view that parents don’t matter. 

Second, by proactively helping children overcome less desirable inborn characteristics. As I noted earlier, not only do children influence parents, but parents influence children. Over one hundred years ago, Brigham Young, after whom Brigham Young University is named, encouraged parents to “study their [children’s] dispositions and their temperaments, and deal with them accordingly” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 207). In line with this, scientific evidence is emerging to suggest that proactive parenting styles, for example, can enhance or diminish children’s biological predispositions (Belsky, 1997; Belsky, Hsieh, & Crnic, 1998; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Kochanska, 1993) There is plasticity in inborn predispositions (Wachs, in press). Genes do not necessarily determine behavior.

By proactively working to adjust their parenting styles (McDevitt, 1988), a growing body of research suggests that parental sensitivity and nurturing involvement accompanied by firm limit setting and cohesive family relationships can help diminish difficult child behavioral dispositions such as hyperactivity, antisocial tendencies, and negative emotionality (e.g., Arcus & Kagen, 1995; Engfer, 1986; Fish, 1997; Feldman & Winberger, 1994; Hinshaw, et al., 1997; Kandel & Wu, 1995;Woodward, Taylor and Dowdney, 1998; Van den Boom, 1994). Illustrative also is a recent line of research that indicates more inhibited children are more likely to develop internal regulation mechanisms (or a conscience) that plays out in socially skilled behavior if their parents use gentle discipline rather than more punitive forms of control (e.g., Kochanska, 1997; Kochanska, Aksan, & Koenig, 1995; Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997). Alternatively, not proactively adjusting parenting styles to best meet child needs can create problems. Parents giving into punitive control urges or overprotective inclinations in response to spirited or inhibited child characteristics can serve to worsen the behavior of difficult children. It can also evoke more difficult behavior in easier-to-raise children (e.g., Belsky, et al.,1991; Patterson et al., 1992; Rubin, Nelson, et al., in press; Wachs et al., 1993). In line with the perspective that parents also influence children, remember that I earlier noted a body of intervention research demonstrating when parents change their behavior in positive ways, child behavior in and out of the home changes accordingly.

Third, parents can matter by enhancing many positive inborn capabilities that different children come into the world with by providing opportunities for further development (e.g., Ladd & Hart, 1992; Hart, Yang et al., 1998; Profilet & Ladd, 1994). Social, academic, athletic, artistic, spiritual, and musical domains are examples of areas that parents can provide opportunities for enhancement. This can be done by providing opportunities to practice social skills with peers, reading to children when they are young, allowing children to participate in organized sports, emphasizing spirituality through practicing family religious traditions, and providing exposure to art and music learning opportunities. Talents along these lines that are less complete to begin with can also be developed with parental encouragement and the provision of opportunity.   

The Importance of Positive Parenting Styles 

In conclusion, I would like to say something about the research illustrating how general parenting styles, namely authoritative, coercive, and permissive patterns are associated with child and adolescent outcomes. Recent research, including our own, has identified these parenting patterns in diverse cultural contexts including Australia, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States  (e.g., Russell, et al., 1999; Wu et al., 1999; Hart, Nelson et al., in press). These patterns have been similarly linked to independent measures of child peer group outcomes in each of these settings (e.g., Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1998; Hart, Nelson, et al., 1998; in press)

Authoritative parenting. Although time will not permit a detailed elaboration, authoritative parenting is referred to in the research literature as a style that is most adaptable to both easier and difficult child characteristics (e.g., Baumrind, 1996; Hart & Newell, in press; Hinshaw et al., 1997; Woodward et al., 1998). Authoritative parents work to adjust their parenting styles according to each child’s temperament in ways that foster a positive emotional connection with their children, provides for regulation that places fair and consistent limits on child behavior, and allows for reasonable child autonomy in decision-making (e.g., Baumrind, 1996; Barber & Olsen, 1997; Nucci & Smetana, 1996; Russell et al., 1998). How this is enacted varies for each child depending on their unique characteristics as well as other factors (Holden & Miller, 1999).

The authoritative style has been documented to create a positive emotional climate that helps children be more open to parental input and direction (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Mize & Pettit, 1997). Numerous studies have shown that children and adolescents reared by authoritative parents tend to be better adjusted to school, less aggressive and delinquent, and less likely to abuse drugs. They are also more likely to be friendly and accepted by peers,  better communicators,  more self-motivated, more academically successful, and more willing to abide by laws (see Hart & Newell, in press for a review), Children raised in authoritative homes are also more capable of moral reasoning (Turiel, 1998; Walker & Taylor, 1991) and are more self-controlled in their behavior (e.g., Kochanska & Aksan, 1995).

Coercive Parenting. In contrast, an all fits one approach to child-rearing is often reflected in coercive parenting styles. Parenting that creates a climate of hostility manifested by frequent spanking, yelling, criticizing, directing, and forcing has been linked to many forms of antisocial, withdrawn, and delinquent behaviors in children and adolescents (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998; Dishion et al., 1994; Hart et al., 1997; Pettit et al., 1996; Nix et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1997; Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994). It has also been associated with children coming to think they will get their way by using force with peers (Hart, Ladd, & Burleson, 1990; Hart, DeWolf, & Burts, 1992). Psychologically controlling parenting styles that threaten love withdrawal until a child conforms, or relies on guilt manipulation or discounting a child’s feelings to gain control is associated with similar negative child behavior with peers as well as with anxiety and depressive symptoms in childhood and adolescence (e.g., Barber, 1996; Hart, Nelson, et al.,1998; Olsen et al., in press)

Permissive Parenting. Permissive-prone parents are more tolerant of children’s impulses (including aggression), encourage children to make their own decisions without providing parameters within which they can be made, and refrain from imposing structure on children’s time (i.e., bedtime, mealtime, TV watching). They also keep at a minimum restrictions, demands for mature behavior, and consequences for misbehavior (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Social science research suggests that children raised by permissive parents may have greater difficulty respecting others, coping with frustration, delaying their gratification for a greater goal, and following through with their plans (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Not monitoring behavior and setting limits to what children and adolescents can do has also been associated with more defiance of authority figures and a greater likelihood of delinquent behavior (e.g., Atilli, 1989; Barber & Olsen, 1997; Kim et al., 1999; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).

In conclusion, good parenting is difficult but fulfilling work. Like a river that ebbs and flows, parents are not always authoritative and never permissive or coercive. However, most parents tend to be more one way than another (e.g., Holden & Miller,1999). The pattern of interaction with individual children and the climate created by parenting styles in the home can enhance or mitigate inborn child characteristics. Also, what parents teach their children by precept and example about moral and religious values helps them make wise choices, even in the face of biological urges or peer influences that would have them do otherwise. Finally, parents can make a difference by providing opportunities that capitalize on individual strengths that children have. I hope that the information I have provided will also be helpful in sustaining the views that married heterosexual parents matter, that fathers and mothers do make unique contributions to children’s development, that what parents do with children in the home matters outside of the home, and that genetics, peers, and particularly parents are important in children’s lives. Thank you for allowing me to share this important information with you.

References:

Ackerman, B. P., Kogos, J., Youngstrom, E., Schoff, K., & Izard, C. (1999). Family instability and the problem behaviors of children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Development, 35, 258-268.

Arcus, D., & Kagan, J. (1995, March).  Temperamental contributions to social behavior. Paper presented at the Society for Research and Child Development Meetings. Indianapolis, IN.

Attili, G. (1989).  Social competence versus emotional security: The link between home relationships and behavior problems at school.  In B. H.Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 293-311).  Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

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

Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 287-315.

Barber, B. K., Harmon, E. L., Bean, R. L., & Erickson, L. D. (in press).  Violating the self:  Parental psychological control of children and adolescents.  In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Parental Psychological Control of Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Baumrind, D. (1993).  The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scarr.  Child Development, 64, 1299-1317.

Baumrind, D. (1996) The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45,405-414.

Baumrind, D. (1997). Necessary distinctions. Psychological Inquiry,8 (3), 176-229.

Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22, 595-603.  

Belsky, J. (1997).  Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility to rearing influence: The case of mothering and attachment.  Child Development, 64 (4), 598-600.

Belsky, J., Fish, M., & Isabella, R. (1991).  Continuity and discontinuity in infant negative an positive emotionality.  Developmental Psychology, 27, 421-431.

Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998).  Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3 years: Differential susceptibility to rearing experience?  Development and Psychopathology, 10, 595-603.

Berndt, T.J. & Keefe, K. (1995).  Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school.  Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.

Blankenhorn, D.(1995).  Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. New York: Basic Books.

Booth, C. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., McKinnon, J., & Rubin, K. H. (1994).  Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of preschool attachment security and maternal style.  Social Development, 3, 189-204.

Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990).  Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart.  Science, 250, 223-228.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-Nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 4, 568-586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., McClelland, P., Wethington, E., Moen, P., & Ceci, S.J. (1996).  The State of Americans. New York: The Free Press.

Bronstein, P., Duncan, P., D’Ari, A., Pieniadz, J., Fitzgerald, M., Abrams, C. L., Frankowski, B., Franco, O., Hunt, C., & Oh Cha, S. (1996). Family and parenting behaviors predicting middle school adjustment: A longitudinal study. Family Relations, 45, 415- 425.

Carlson, E. A. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/disorientation. Child Development, 4, 1107-1128.

Carson, L., & Parke, R. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child interactions and children=s peer competency. Child Development, 67, 2217-2226.

Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997).  Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children.  International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg  (Vol.Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 779-862). New York: Wiley.

Comanor, W. S. & Phillips, L. (1998). The impact of income and family structure on delinquency. Working paper in economics No. 7-95R, University of California at Santa Barbara Economics Department.  

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,113,487-496.

Dishion, T. J., Duncan, T. E. Eddy, J. M., Fagot, B. I., & Fetrow, R. (1994).  The world of parents and peers: Coercive exchanges and children=s social adaption.  Social Development, 3, 255-268.

Dumas, J. E., & Lafreniere, P. J. (1995).  Relationships as context: Supportive and coercive interactions in competent, aggressive, and anxious mother–child dyads. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (9-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engfer, A. (1986).  Antecedents of perceived behavior problems in infancy.  In G. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament discussed (pp. 165-180).  Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Farber, S. L. (1981).  Identical twins reared apart: A reanalysis.  New York: Basic Books.

Feldman, S., & Weinberger, D. (1994).  Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on boys delinquent behavior.  Child Development, 65, 195-211.

Fish, M. (1997, April).  Stability and change in infant temperament. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Meetings. Washington, D.C.

Gottman, J., & DeClaire, J. (1997). The Heart of Parenting: How to raise an emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J.  (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child=s internalization of values: A reconceptualization. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.

Harper, C.C. & McLanahan, S.S. (1998).  Father absence and youth incarceration.  Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.  

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child=s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: The Free Press.

Harris, K. M., Furstenburg, F. F., & Marmer, J. K. (1998). Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course. Demography, 35, 201-216.

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, M. D., & Burts, D. C. (1992a).  Linkages among preschoolers= playground behavior, outcome expectations, and parental disciplinary strategies.  Early Education and Development, 3, 265-283.

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, M. D., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992b). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers= playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879-892.

Hart, C. H., Ladd, G. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Children=s expectations of the outcomes of social strategies: Relations with sociometric status and maternal disciplinary styles.  Child Development, 61, 127-137.

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages.  Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.

 Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., McNeilly-Choque, M. K., Porter, C. L.,  & Mckee, T. R. (in press). Russian parenting styles and family processes: Linkages with subtypes of victimization and aggression. In K. A. Kerns, J. M. Contreras and A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Family and peers: Linking two social worlds. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hart, C.H., and Newell, L.D. (in press). Parenting skills and social/communicative competence in childhood. In J.O. Greene & B.R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skill. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Robinson, C., & Mandleco, B. L. (1997).  The development of social and communicative competence in childhood: Review and a model of personal, familial, and extra familial processes.  In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 20, pp. 305-373).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, D., Jin, S., & Nelson, L. (1998). Peer contact patterns, parenting practices, and preschoolers= social competence in China, Russia, and the United States. In P. Slee & K. Rigby (Eds.), Peer relations amongst children: Current issues and future directions (pp. 1-30). London: Routledge.

Hawkins, A.J. & Palkovitz, R. (1999).  Beyond ticks and clicks: The need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations and measures of father involvement.  The Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, (1) 11-32.

Heaton, T. B.(1999).  Social forces that imperil the family.  Manuscript submitted for publication. Brigham Young University.

Hinshaw, S. P., Zupan, B. A., Simmel, C., Nigg, J. T., & Melnick, S. (1997). Peer status in boys with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Predictions from overt and covert antisocial behavior, social isolation, and authoritative parenting beliefs. Child Development, 68, 880-896.

Hoffman, L. W. (1991). The influence of the family environment on personality: Accounting for sibling differences. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 187-203.

Hoffman, L. W. (1994). Commentary on Plomin, R. (1994). A proof and a disproof questioned. Social Development, 3, 60-63.

Hojat, M. (1998). Satisfaction with early relationships with parents and psychosocial attributes in adulthood: Which parent contributes more? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 202-220.

Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of the similarity in parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 223-254.

Isley, S., O’Neil,  R., & Parke, R. D. (1996). The relation of parental affect and control behaviors to children’s classroom acceptance: A concurrent and predictive analysis. Early Education and Development, 7, 8-23.

Isley, S. L., O’Neil, R. O., Clatfelter, D., & Parke, R. D. (1999). Parent and child expressed affect and children’s social competence: Modeling direct and indirect pathways. Developmental Psychology, 2, 547-560.

Kandel, D. B., Wu, P.  (1995).  Disentangling mother–child effects in the development of antisocial behavior.  In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (106-123).  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M. & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70, 1209-1230.

Kochanska, G. (1993).  Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience.  Child Development, 64, 325-347.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development, 68, 94-112.

Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Koenig, A. L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of preschoolers= conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 1752-1769.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., & Coy, K. C. (1997).  Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age.   Child Development, 68 (2), 263-277.

Kuczynski, L., & Lollis, S. (in press). Four foundations for a dynamic model of parenting. In J. R. M. Gerris (Ed.). Dynamics of parenting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Ladd, G. W., & Hart, C. H. (1992). Creating informal play opportunities: Are parents= and preschoolers initiations related to children=s competence with peers?  Developmental Psychology, 28, 1179-1187.

Ladd, G. W., Profilet, S. M. & Hart, C. H. (1992). Parents’ management of children’s peer relations: Facilitating and supervising children’s activities in the peer culture. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.). Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (215 - 254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Lamb, M.E. (1997).  The role of the father in child development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects on conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-644.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (1-102).  New York: Wiley.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R., & Lamb, M. (in press). Journal of Marriage and the Family: Decade Review.

Mayer, S. (1997).  What money can’t buy: The effect of parental income on children’s outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (in press).  The consequences of childhood peer rejection.  In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal Rejection.

McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996).  Patterns of change in early childhood aggressive-disruptive behavior: Gender difference in predictions from early coercive and affectionate motherBchild interactions. Child Development, 67, 2417-2433.

McGue, M., Sharma, A., & Benson, P. (1996). The effect of common rearing on adolescent development: Evidence from a U.S. adoption court. Developmental Psychology, 32, 604-613.   

McLoyd, V.C. (1998).  Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.  American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers' social coaching, mother-child relationship style and children=s peer competence: Is the medium the message?  Child Development,68, 291-311.

Newell, L. D., Hart, C. H., & Sine, L. L. (in press).  Proclamation–based principles of parenting and supportive scholarship.  In D. Dollahite and A. Hawkins (Eds.), Marriage and Family Life: Principles from the Proclamation.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers’ hostile attribution tendencies and children’s externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers’ harsh discipline practices. Child Development, 70 (4), 896-909.   

Nucci, L., & Smetana, J.G. (1996). Mothers= concepts of young childrens= areas of personal freedom. Child Development, 67, 1870-1886.

O'Connor, T. G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R. (1998). Genotype B environment correlations in late childhood and early adolescence: Antisocial behavioral problems and coercive parenting. Developmental Psychology, 34, 970-981.

Olsen, S. F., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., Wu, P., Nelson, D. A., Nelson, L. J., Jin, S., & Jianzhong, W. (in press). Mothers= psychological control and preschool children=s behavioral outcomes in China, Russia, and the United States. In B. Barber (Ed.), Psychological control of children and adolescents. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Parke, R.D. (1996).  Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parke, R. D., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., Neville, B., & Boyum, L. A. (1994). Family-peer relationships: A tripartite model. In R. D. Parke & S. G. Kellam (Eds.), Exploring family relationships within other social contexts (pp. 115-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burkes, V. M., Carson, J. L., & Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contribution to peer competence among young children: The role of interactive and affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 107-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432-444.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior.  American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992).  Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997).  Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children=s adjustment: A seven-year study.  Child Development, 68, 908-923.

Pettit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1996).  Stability and change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology.  Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267-294.

Pike, A., McGuire, S., Hetherington, E.M., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R. (1996).  Family environment and adolescent depressive symptoms and antisocial behavior: A multivariate genetic analysis.  Developmental Psychology, 32, 590-603.

Pike, A., & Plomin, R. (1997). A behavioural genetic perspective on close relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 647-667.

Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Plomin, R., Reiss, D. E., Hetherington, M., & Howe, G. W. (1994). Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Developmental Psychology, 30, 32-43.

Plomin, R., & Rutter, M. (1998). Child development, molecular genetics, and what to do with genes once they are found. Child Development, 69, 1223-1242.

Popenoe, D. (1996).  Life without father. New York: Pressler Press.

Profilet, S. M., & Ladd, G. W. (1994). Do mother= perceptions and concerns about preschoolers= peer competence predict their peer-management practices? Social Development, 3, 205-221.

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 105-176). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rowe, D. C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York: Guilford Press.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 619-700). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, K.H., Nelson, L.J., Hastings, P., & Asendorpf, J. (in press). The transaction between parents’ perceptions of their children’s shyness and their parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development.

Russell, A., Robinson, C.C., Hart, C.H., & Olsen, S.F. (1999).  The contributions of temperament and parenting styles to children’s prosocial and aggressive behavior in the U.S. and Australia: Moderating effects of parent sex, child sex, and country.  Manuscript submitted for publication.  

Sameroff, A. (in press).  General systems theories and developmental psychopathology.  In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Manual of developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley.  

Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1995). Child temperament and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein, (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, volume 4, Applied and practical parenting (pp. 299-321). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990's: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1-19.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983).  How people make their own environments.  Child Development, 54, 424-435.

Schmitz, S., Fulker, D. W., Plomin, R., Zahn-Waxler, C., & DeFries, J. C. (1999). Temperament and problem behavior during early childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 333-355.   

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997).  The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying.  Child Development, 68, 665-675.

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1998).  Harsh, firm, and permissive parenting in lowBincome families: Relations to children=s academic achievement and behavioral adjustment.  Journal of Family Issues, 19 (5), 483-507.

Silverstein, L. B. & Auerbach, C. F. (1999).  Deconstructing the essential father.  American Psychologist, 54 (6), 397-407.

Simons, R.L., Johnson, D., & Conger, R.D. (1994).  Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment.  Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 591-607.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977).  Temperament and development. New York: Brunner-Mazel.

Top, B.L. & Chadwick, B.A. (1998).  Raising righteous children in a wicked world.  Brigham Young Magazine. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University.

Top, B.L. & Chadwick, B.A. (March, 1999).  Helping teens stay strong.  Ensign, 26-34.

Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, E., Bertrand, L., LeBlanc, M., Beauchesne, H., Boileau, H., & David, L. (1992).  Parent and child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montreal longitudinal study. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing anti-social behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (pp.117-138). New York: Guilford Press.

Turiel, E. (1998). Development of Morality. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg  (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 779-862). New York: Wiley.

Van den Boom, D. (1994).  The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration.  Child Development, 65, 1457-1477.

Volling, B.L. & Elins, J.L. (1998).  Family relationships and children’s emotional adjustment as correlates of maternal and paternal differential treatment: A replication with toddler and preschool siblings.  Child Development, 69, 1640-1656.

Vuchinich, S., Bank, L., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Parenting, peers, and the stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 28, 510-521.

Wachs, T. D. (in press). The what, why, and how of temperament: A piece of the action. Child Psychology: A Handbook of Contemporary Issues New York: Garland.

Wachs, T.D., Bishry, Z., Sobhy, A., McCabe, G., Galal, O., & Shaheen, F. (1993).  Relation of rearing environment to adaptive behavior of Egyptian toddlers.  Child Development, 64, 586-604.

Waite, L.J. (1995).  Does Marriage Matter?  Demography, 32 (4), 483-507.

Walker, L. J., & Taylor, J. H. (1991). Family interactions and the development of moral reasoning. Child Development, 62, 264-283.

Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1997). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: A comparison of child and parent training interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 93-109.

Woodward, L., Taylor, E., Dowdney, L. (1998). The parenting and family functioning of children with hyperactivity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 161-169.    

Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F. , Jin, S. Wo, J., & Wu, X. (1999). Understanding Chinese parenting through cultural notions. Manuscript submitted for publication.          

Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.