Core Dimensions of Parenting.

Over the past several decades, parenting researchers have repeatedly suggested that three dimensions can be considered as a set of core features of parenting style. These are warmth versus rejection, structure versus chaos, and autonomy support versus coercion. As can be seen in the historical overview in Table 1, these dimensions have appeared in assessments of parenting for children from preschool age to late adolescence and have been tapped using a variety of methods, most notably parent- and child-report questionnaires, but also including open-ended interviews, rating scales, and observations in vivo and in the laboratory. Indeed, these very three features of parenting, referred to as Acceptance versus Rejection, Firm Control versus Lax Control, and Autonomy versus help and attention, or it can be initiated by the parent, independent of the child’s behavior.

Structure and chaos. When it first appeared in the parenting literature in discussions of discipline and control, structure referred to the provision of clear expectations for mature behavior combined with consistent and appropriate limit setting. Also described as firm control, structure was a defining feature of parenting that was authoritative in discipline and communication. Independent lines of work in learned helplessness and infant cognition converged on the notion of contingency, which became central to discussions of parental influences on children’s perceived control (for a review, see Gunnar, 1980). This work has broadened the definition of structure to refer to the extent to which social and physical contexts provide individuals with information about the pathways to achieving desired and avoiding undesired outcomes, and provide support and guidance for following those pathways. In work on families, this construct is sometimes referred to as organization. In parenting, it has also been studied as a defining feature of restrictiveness, demandingness, and assertive control. Most descriptions of the kinds of parenting that do not provide structure focus on the lack of consistent discipline (e.g., lax control). However, work on perceived control suggests that an important component of lack of structure is non-contingency. Hence, the construct of lax control can be broadened, so that the conceptual opposite of structure is chaos. Chaos goes beyond lack of structure to refer to parenting behaviors that are noncontingent, inconsistent, erratic, unpredictable, undependable, arbitrary, or, in general, interfere with or obscure the pathways from means to ends. In work on micro-environments, chaos is considered a kind of environmental confusion, which includes disorganization and hubbub.

Autonomy support and coercion. The third theme in research on parenting styles has been the importance of parental provision of autonomy support. This dimension was first elaborated by pointing out the harmful consequences of its conceptual opposite, coercion. Also referred to as psychological control, coercive parenting describes a restrictive over-controlling intrusive autocratic style in which strict obedience is demanded. A key feature of authoritarian parenting, coercion has been linked to both internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. Definitions of parental autonomy support, or autonomy granting, originally focused on the absence of psychological control or coercion. However, research on self-determination and autonomy has elaborated and clarified this concept.

Support for autonomy extends beyond allowing children freedom of choice and expression to communicating genuine respect and deference and encouraging children to actively discover, explore, and articulate their own views, goals, and preferences. Autonomy support characterizes interactions in which children are expected to express their views and opinions and in which these are given weight in planning and problem solving. Relations Among the Dimensions of Parenting Some of the most interesting work on parenting attempts to distinguish these dimensions from each other (and from related constructs) and to provide justification for these dimensions as core constructs of parenting.

Distinguishing warmth. The dimensions of warmth and rejection can be differentiated from two sets of closely related constructs. On the one hand, they can be distinguished from involvement and neglect, which typically refer to the amount of commitment to and engagement in the parenting role (as indexed by time spent, knowledge, and participation in parenting activities, e.g.). These quantitative indicators are usually considered facilitators of the effects of parenting style, in which neglect (also referred to as diminished, inactive, or indifferent parenting) has been found to be problematic, but the effects of high involvement depend on how the parent is involved. On the other hand, warmth and rejection can also be distinguished from descriptions of the overall quality of parenting as good or bad, reflected in terms such as supportive versus non-supportive parenting (see Table 1). Labels like positive or high-quality parenting typically include parenting that is not only warm but also high in structure and autonomy support. In a similar vein, descriptions of negative or harsh parenting typically include not only rejection but also parenting that is chaotic and coercive.

Distinguishing structure from autonomy support.

Work on parenting dimensions has differentiated the constructs of structure and chaos from those of autonomy support and coercion. Early work on the dimensions of parenting posited two primary axes along which child rearing behaviors could be distinguished: one representing love versus hostility (or acceptance vs. rejection) and one marked by restrictiveness versus permissiveness.

This second axis had one pole defined by firm parent demands for maturity and obedience, high standards, strictness, and punitiveness; at the other pole was indulgence, lax discipline, protectiveness, and freedom granting.

From this perspective, a moderate amount of restrictiveness was optimal, leading to expectations of curvilinear relations between assessments of restrictiveness and child outcomes. However, as psychological control was differentiated from behavioral control, and assertive or firm control was differentiated from directive or intrusive control, it became clear that two different dimensions could be distinguished. One referred to high, consistent, clear, fair demands (structure); the other referred to arbitrary, punitive, controlling insistence on strict obedience (coercion). The opposite of structure is not freedom, it is chaos (inconsistency, unpredictability, lax discipline); and the opposite of coercion is not chaos, it is autonomy granting and support for individuality (autonomy support0. High support for autonomy does not necessarily imply chaotic parenting, and high structure does not automatically involve coercion. An optimal parenting style (e.g., authoritative) is one that combines high structure and high autonomy support. We note that terminology has been a source of conceptual confusion. Specifically, as can be seen in Table 1, the term control is used in many different and contradictory ways in descriptions of parenting. Sometimes it refers to practices of discipline (control techniques), sometimes to authoritarian parenting (overcontrolling), sometimes to structure (assertive control, firm control), sometimes to chaos (lax control), sometimes to coercion (psychological control, controlling), and sometimes even to autonomy support (supportive control). Given the history of the term control in this and other areas, we have chosen not to use it at all in describing dimensions of parenting.

The Motivational Model

A theoretical framework for positing these three as core dimensions can be found in the Self-system Model of Motivational Development. At the most general level, the motivational model posits that children are intrinsically motivated by three basic psychological needs: Children need to experience themselves as belonging (related), as effective (competent), and as authentic. When parents interact with children in ways that allow them to experience themselves as related, competent, and autonomous, children engage more constructively with parents and are more willing to be seriously socialized.

Integrating work on attachment, perceived control, and self-determination, the motivational model holds that parental warmth is critical to children’s experiences of belonging, that parental provision of structure is the basis for experiences of competence, and that parental autonomy support is necessary for children to express their autonomy. In contrast, the model stipulates that parental rejection undermines a child’s sense of relatedness, that chaotic parenting interferes with a child’s sense of efficacy, and that parental coercion prevents children from developing psychological autonomy. The motivational model also explains why these features of parenting style should be critical in shaping children’s development — because they have an impact on children’s receptive compliance or openness to socialization. The key notion is that interacting with parents who support children’s fundamental psychological needs serves an energetic function. Children are motivated to constructively engage with parents, to cooperate with the parental agenda, and to internalize the behaviors and values promulgated by parents. In other words, they are ready to be socialized. In contrast, children who interact with parents who are hostile, chaotic, and coercive become disaffected from parent – child interactions, and can be sullen, submissive, oppositional, or apathetic. In other words, they resist socialization. Because of their centrality in facilitating children’s motivation and in predicting their engagement, these three dimensions of social contexts have been a frequent target of research. Warmth/involvement, structure, and autonomy support from parents and teachers have been shown to predict the development of children’s self-system processes and their trajectories of engagement in many domains all across childhood.

Comprehensive Historical Overview of the Dimensions Included in Parenting Measures Over the Last 60 Years.