See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284239814

The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ)

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS
201 47,519

4 authors:

Clyde C. Robinson Barbara Mandleco

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus 7 PUBLICATIONS   463 CITATIONS   
33 PUBLICATIONS   2,330 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Susanne Olsen Roper Craig H Hart

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
60 PUBLICATIONS   2,774 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   4,399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Preschoolers Play View project

Type 1 Diabetes - Family Adaptation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Clyde C. Robinson on 01 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psycholo gical Repo rts, 1995, 7 7, 819-8 30.

AUTHORITATIVE, AUTHORITARIAN, AND PERMISSIVE

PARENTING PRACTICES: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MEASURE1

CLYDE C. ROBINSON, BARBARA MANDLECO,

SUSANNE FROST OLSEN, AND CRAIG H. HART

Brigham Young University

Summ ary. -- A 133-item parenting questionnaire was completed by 1251 parents of preschool and
school-age children. Items in this measure were reduced using principle axes factor analyses followed by
varimax rotation. Three global parenting dimensions emerged consistent with Baumrind’s authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive typologies. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach alpha
and additional items were deleted. A 62-item instrument was retained, and the global parenting dimensions
were subsequently analyzed to determine their internal structures using principle axes factor analyses
followed by oblique rotation. For each of the three global dimensions a number of specific factors were
identified.

Baumrind’s Contribution

Baumrind’s (1971) authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies are currently

widely employed models of parenting styles. Baumrind originally conceptualized eight types of
parents including rejecting-neglecting, nonconforming, authoritative nonconforming,
authoritarian-rejecting-neglecting, etc. Baumrind (1991) later discusses sex-role traditional as an
additional type of parent. For the purposes of this paper we address the three main types of
parenting styles commonly studied (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive). Over the past two
decades, research in the United States based on Baumrind’s three major prototypes has yielded a
consistent picture of the types of parenting thought to enhance or mitigate the successful
socialization of middle-class children. For example, authoritative parenting style has been shown
to assist young children and adolescents develop instrumental competence which is characterized
by psychosocial maturity, cooperation with peers and adults, responsible independence, and
academic success (for reviews, see Baumrind, 1971, 1989, 1991). Many methodological
strategies currently used to derive Baumrind’s three main typologies are limited in many respects.
The purpose of this report is to introduce findings regarding a new measure designed to assess
empirically these typologies for parents of preschool and school-age children.

Methodological Strategies and Limitations

Baumrind’s conceptualization encompasses parents’ attitudes and values about parenting,

their beliefs about the nature of children as well as the specific practices they employ to socialize
their children. Baumrind used a multimethod approach to assess parenting styles that included
1
Requests for reprints should be sent to Clyde C. Robinson, Department of Marriage, Family, and Human
Development, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84604.
820 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

parent rating scales, psychologists’ Q-sorts, and behavioral observations. For research on
socialization , however, Baumrind’s approach has several disadvantages. For example, because
observations and interviewing are extensive, fewer subjects can be included in studies. In
addition, the cost for the approach is high in terms of special training required for data-gathering
personnel and the time required for collecting data.
A common strategy in assessing Baumrind’s three main typologies has been to obtain
adolescents’ reports of parents’ parenting styles (e.g., Buri, 1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,
Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Greenberger, 1988; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991).
These indirect parenting measures, completed by adolescents and used in assessing adolescent
outcomes, eliminate several disadvantages of Baumrind’s approach; however, these particular
methods may be unsatisfactory for use with younger children since they are designed particularly
for adolescents reporting on how they were parented and academic-related content is often used
in the questionnaire items.
Specifically, the challenge for preadolescent children is that they may not assess accurately
their parents’ parenting practices. Thus, a widely used parenting practices instrument, developed
for parents of young children, has been Block’s (1965) Child-rearing Practices Report, a 91-item
Q-sort. Disadvantages of this report are that it (a) contains a large number of determined factors
(28 to 33) with moderate to low reliabilities, (b) it does not adequately tap Baumrind’s typology,
and (c) it is comprised of many items which may be outdated or inconsistent with the current
literature. Also, items which tap the parental belief domain, e.g., ?I believe that a child should be
seen and not heard”, and items which tap the parental practice domain, e.g., ?I don’t go out if I
have to leave my child with a stranger,” are incorporated into Block’s report without
distinguishing between the two domains. In addition, few items in Block’s report describe
inductive reasoning, and few items can be classified into Baumrind’s conceptualizations of
authoritative parental behavior of child-centeredness versus parent-centeredness. Only one item
addresses the issue of democratic give and take. Rickel and Biasatti (1982) showed that Block’s
report can be revised into a questionnaire in which a 6-point scale is employed without
decreasing reliability or affecting the factor structure.
Some attempts have been made by researchers interested in socialization (Kochanska,
Kuczynski, & Radke-Yarrow, 1989; Trickett & Susman, 1988) to reduce the number of factors in
the Block report and make them more consistent with Baumrind’s conceptualizations (Chao,
1994). In constructing their measure Kochanska, et al. (1989) incorporated from the Block
original solutions only those factors which they deemed to be congruent with authoritarian and
authoritative child-rearing patterns. However, a limitation with this strategy was that they used
conceptual guidelines rather than empirical derivations. The authoritative pattern consisted of
the factors, expression of affection, e.g., ?I feel a child should be given comfort and
understanding when he/she is scared or upset”, rational guidance, e.g., ?I make sure my child
knows that I appreciate what he/she tries or accomplishes”, encouragement of independence, e.g.,
?If my child gets into trouble, I expect him/her to handle the problem mostly by him/herself”.
The authoritarian pattern consisted of the factors authoritarian control, e.g., ?I believe children
 PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE 821

should not have secrets from their parents”, supervision of the child, e.g., ?I believe it is unwise
to let children play a lot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups”, and control by
anxiety induction, e.g., ? I teach my child that in one way or another punishment will find
him/her when he/she is bad.” Unfortunately, the reliabilities of these two conceptual scales were
not reported. Trickett and Susman (1988) also conceptually grouped Block’s original factors into
three scales of enjoyment of child and parental role, encouragement of autonomy, and
authoritarian control. In examining these items the conceptual basis for these scales is not clear.
In addition to concerns about conceptually derived inventories, another issue in developing
measures to assess parenting typologies for young children lies in empirically identifying
practices that comprise the typologies (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). For example, Buri and
Greenberger’s adolescent instruments have been modified for parents of younger children to
complete; however, these measures are mainly designed to assess Baumrind’s main global
typologies. As Smetana (1994) pointed out, global typologies may give little information about
ways specific parenting practices are related to children’s behavior. For instance, within the
authoritative typology, it would be reasonable to assume that inductive practices would be related
more to children’s adaptive social cognitions and that parental warmth and involvement would
have stronger linkages with children’s prosocial behavior, e.g., helping, sharing, comforting. As
Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggest, different parenting practices within a typology would be
more or less important to investigate depending on the specific developmental outcome of
interest.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was not only to develop an empirical means of
assessing global typologies consistent with Baumrind’s main conceptualizations for parents of
preadolescent children but also to identify specific parenting practices that occur within the
context of the typologies (cf. Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Factor and reliability analyses were
conducted to achieve these aims.

METHOD

Initially, 133 questionnaire items with a 5-point scale anchored by never (1) and always (5)
was developed using 80 items from Block’s report and 53 new items. The new items were
constructed based on conceptualizations of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies
drawn from the current literature that appeared to have face validity. Items reflecting Baumrind’s
other typologies were not included in this instrument. The parenting practices questionnaire was
completed by 1,251 volunteer parents (534 fathers and 717 mothers) residing in communities
located in Utah. Of these participants, 32% were parents of preschool-age children from
university/Head Start preschools and 68% were parents of school-age children from parochial
and public elementary schools. Fathers had a mean age of 37.9 yr. (ranging from 22 to 63) and
mothers had a mean age of 35.6 yr. (ranging from 20 to 57). Fathers had completed a mean of
15.3 yr. of schooling (ranging from 8 to 23), and mothers had completed a mean of 14.6 yr. of
schooling (also ranging from 8 to 23). The majority of the participants were Caucasian from two-
parent families whose median family income was approximately $30,000.
822 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

RESULTS

The study’s design consisted of two phases. For the first phase we planned to extract from
the 133-item questionnaire three factors deemed to theoretically correspond with Baumrind’s
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies. Initial reductions in number of items were
accomplished by a series of principle axes factor analyses followed by varimax rotations. Items
were retained if they (a) had a loading near or over .30 (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), (b)
loaded for both fathers and mothers, and (c) loaded for parents of both preschool- and school-age
children. Seventy-seven items met this criterion. Additional items were eliminated if their
correlations with the total factor score were less than .25. This resulted in 62 questions retained:
the Authoritative Items consisting of 27 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .91, the
Authoritarian Items consisting of 20 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .86, and the Permissive
Items consisting of 15 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .75. This 62-item measure included 19
items (31%) retained from Block’s report and 43 new items (69%).
For the second phase of the study’s design we intended to determine the dimensions and
internal structures within the Authoritative Items, Authoritarian Items, and Permissive Items that
may reflect specific parenting practices. Each set of items within the three global typologies were
analyzed using principle axes factor analysis followed by oblimin rotation. Four factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the Authoritative Items accounting for 47.4%
of the variance. These factors were labeled (a) Warmth and Involvement with 11 items, (b)
Reasoning/Induction with 7 items, (c) Democratic Participation with 5 items; and (d) Good
Natured/Easy Going with 4 items. Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted
from the Authoritarian Items accounting for 46.8% of the variance. These factors were labeled
(a) Verbal Hostility with 4 items, (b) Corporal Punishment with 6 items, (c) Nonreasoning,
Punitive Strategies with 6 items, and (d) Directiveness with 4 items. Three factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the Permissive Items accounting for 40.3% of
the variance. These factors were labeled (a) Lack of Follow Through with 6 items, (b) Ignoring
Misbehavior with 4 items, and (c) Self-confidence with 5 items. Table 1 presents the means,
standard deviations, factor loadings, and descriptions of items within each global typology.
These results suggest that parenting questions consistent with Baumrind’s three main
typologies can be empirically derived. Also, a number of conceptually coherent factors identified
within each typology may prove to be useful in predicting differential developmental outcomes
(cf. Darling & Steinberg, 1993). This measure can be used with both mothers and fathers who are
parents of preschool and/or school-age children. A sample of the mothers’ form of the instrument
is found in the Appendix. The fathers’ form is the same except for pronoun changes. This
instrument can also be modified for intergenerational studies. Adults report on how they were
parented by their mothers and/or fathers as children. Researchers must investigate the
correlations of the factors with both child and family outcome measures to assess the validity of
the inventory.
 PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE 823

TABLE 1

Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs

Authoritative Items1

Item M SD Load Factor 1 (Warmth & Involvement)

3f 4.08 .99 .72 Knows the names of child’s friends.
33f 4.18 .87 .68 Aware of problems or concerns about child in school.
5a 4.29 .73 .59 Gives praise when child is good.
12c 4.21 .77 .59 Gives comfort and understanding when child is upset.
35c 4.41 .79 .58 Expresses affection by hugging, kissing, and holding child.
9e 4.23 .77 .57 Show sympathy when child is hurt or frustrated.
27a 4.28 .76 .53 Tells child we appreciate what the child tries or accomplishes.
21f 4.10 .73 .53 Responsive to child’s feelings or needs.
1d 4.03 .93 .57 Encourages child to talk about the child’s troubles.
46c 3.83 .89 .44 Has warm and intimate times together with child.
39h 3.79 1.02 .42 Apologizes to child when making a mistake in parentin g.

Factor 2 (Reasoning/Induction)
58h 3.81 .83 .76 Explains the consequences of the child’s behavior.
25h 3.95 .84 .76 Gives child reasons why rules should be obeyed.
62h 3.85 .91 .75 Emphasizes the reasons for rules.
29h 3.67 .97 .65 Helps child to understand the impact of behavior by encouraging child to talk about the
consequences of (his)(her) own actions.
53h 3.93 .86 .65 Explains how we feel about his/her good and bad behavior.
42a 3.75 .88 .51 Talks it over and reasons with child when the child misbehaves.
16h 3.49 .99 .47 Tells ch ild ou r expect ations regard ing beh avior b efore th e child engages in an activity.

Factor 3 (Democratic Participation)

55b 3.56 .88 .73 Takes into account child’s preferences in making family plans.
22h 3.40 1.05 .64 Allows child to give input into family rules.
31f 3.30 .91 .59 Takes child’s desires in to account before aski ng the child to do something.
48h 3.28 1.04 .33 Encourages child to freely express (himself)(herself) even when disagreeing with parents.
60h 2.99 .94 .31 Channels child’s mis behavi or into a more acceptable activity.

Factor 4 (Good Natu red/Easy Going)

14c 3.82 .80 .68 Is easy going and relaxed with child.
18g 3.62 .71 .58 Shows patience with child.
7c 3.90 .85 .57 Jokes and plays with child.
51b 3.95 .76 .37 Shows resp ect for chil d’s opin ions by encouraging child to e xpress them.
1
Alpha = .91 (27 Items), Sample = 1251

(continued on next page)

*Reverse scoring. , a Block’s Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Block’s Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlock’s Q-sort -
Expression of Affect, d Block’s Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlock’s Q-sort - Control, jBlock’s Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Block’s Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlock’s Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.
824 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

TABLE 1 (Cont’d)

Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs

Authorit arian Items 2

Item M SD Load Factor 1 (Verb al Hostility)

32e 2.07 .75 .74 Explodes in anger towards child.
13k 2.72 .90 .72 Yells or shouts when child misbehaves.
23e 2.25 .79 .71 Argues with child.
44o 2.45 .64 .32 Disagrees with child.

Factor 2 (Corporal Punishment)

37i 1.89 .72 .88 Uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining our child.
6k 1.87 .75 .85 Spanks when our child is disobedient.
Item M SD Load
43k 1.54 .62 74 Slaps child when the child misbehaves.
19k 2.19 .91 51 Grabs child when being disobedient.
2k 2.05 .82 .39 Guides child by punishment more than by reason.
61k 1.30 .60 .30 Shoves child when the child is disobedient.

Factor 3 (Non-Reasoning, Punitive Strategies)

10j 1.55 .77 .78 Punishes by taking privileges away from child with little if any explanations.
28j 1.58 .81 .73 Punishes by putting child off somewhere alone with little if any explanations .
54k 1.59 .75 .58 Uses threats as punishment with little or no justification.
47k 2.20 .93 .48 When two children are fighting, disciplines children first and asks questions later.
26o 1.93 .79 .41 Appears to be more concerned with own feelings than with child’s feelings.
56k 2.18 .88 .40 When child asks why (he)(she) has to conform, states: because I said so, or I am your parent and I
want you to.

Factor 4 (Directiveness)
40o 3.22 .88 .69 Tells child what to do.
59k 2.83 1.02 .67 Demands that child does/do things.
17i 1.93 .86 .64 Scolds and criticizes to make child improve.
50k 2.50 .96 .51 Scolds or criticizes when child’s behavior doesn’t meet our expectations.
2
Alpha = .86 (20 Items), Sample = 1251

(continued on next page)

*Reverse scoring. , a Block’s Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Block’s Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlock’s Q-sort -
Expression of Affect, d Block’s Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlock’s Q-sort - Control, jBlock’s Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Block’s Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlock’s Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.
 PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE 825

TABLE 1 (Cont’d)

Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs

Permissive Items3

Item M SD Load Factor 1 (Lack of Follow Through)

20n 2.06 .79 .75 States pu nishments to child a nd does n ot actuall y do them.
34l 2.61 1.02 .69 Threatens child with punishment more often than giving it.
11m 2.53 .98 .65 Spoils child.
41n 1.96 .77 .42 Gives into child when ( he)(she) causes a commotio n about something.
38n 2.37 .84 -.38* Carries out discipline after child misbehaves.
49n 2.17 .87 .32 Bribes child with rewards to bring about compliance.

Factor 2 (Ignoring Misbehavior)

45n 1.83 .76 .73 Allows child to interrupt others.
15n 1.42 .65 .69 Allows child to annoy someone else.
36n 1.73 .68 .52 Ignores child’s misbehavior.
8n 2.25 .93 .43 Withholds scolding and/or criticism even when child acts contrary to our wishes.

Factor 3 (Self Confidence)

24g 2.17 .78 -.83* Appears confident about parenting abilities.
57g 2.16 .79 .74 Appears unsure on how to solve child’s misbehavior.
4m 2.16 .95 .50 Finds it difficult to discipline child.
52i 2.45 .92 -.37* Sets strict well-established rules for child.
30g 1.55 .68 .36 Is afraid that disciplining child for misbehavior will cause the child to not like his/her parents.
3
Alpha = .75 (15 Items), Sample = 1251

*Reverse scoring. , a Block’s Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Block’s Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlock’s Q-sort -
Expression of Affect, d Block’s Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlock’s Q-sort - Control, jBlock’s Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Block’s Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlock’s Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.
826 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1971) Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology

Monographs, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1989) Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development
today and tomorrow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 349-378.
Baumrind, D. (1991) Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan
& M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 111-163.
Block, J. H. (1965) The child-rearing practices report: a technique for evaluating parental
socialization orientations. Berkeley, CA: Univer. of California, Institute of Human
Development.
Buri, J. R. (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,
110-119.
Chao, R. K. (1994) Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding
Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-
1119.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. O., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,
1244-1257.
Greenberger, E. (1988). New measures for research on work, parenting and the socialization of
children. Unpublished manuscript, U. of California, Program in Social Ecology, Irvine,
CA.
Kochanska, B., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between mothers’
self-reported and observed child-rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56-63.
Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child-rearing Practices
Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129-134.
Smetana, J. G. (1994). Parenting styles and beliefs about parental authority. In J. G. Smetana
(Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: origins and developmental implications. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 21-36.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, D. J., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
 PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE 827

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative
parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper
Collins.
Trickett, P. K., & Susman, E. J. (1988). Parental perceptions of child-rearing practices in
physically abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 24, 270-276.
828 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

APPENDIX

Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers’ Form)

Make two ratings for each item; (1) rate how often your spouse exhibits this behavior with your child and
(2) how often you exhibit this behavior with your child.

SPOUSE EXHIBITS BEHAVIOR: I EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOR:

1 = Never 1 = Never
2 = Once In Awhile 2 = Once In Awhile
3 = About Hal f of the Time 3 = About Hal f of the Time
4 = Very Often 4 = Very Often
5 = Always 5 = Always

[He] [I ]
1. [He encourages] [I encourage] our child to talk about the child’s troubles.
2. [He guides] [I guide] our child by punishment more than by reason.
3. [He knows] [I know] the names of our child’s friends.
4. [He finds] [I find] it difficult to discipline our child.
5. [He gives praise] [I give praise] when our child is good.
6. [He spanks] [I spank] when our child is disobedient.
7. [He jokes and plays] [I joke and play] with our child.
8. [He withholds] [I withhold] scolding and/or criticism even when our child acts contrary to our wishes.
9. [He shows] [I show] sympathy when our child is hurt or frustrated.
10. [He punishes] [I punish] by taking privileges away from our child with little if any explanations.
11. [He spoils] [I spoil] our child.
12. [He gives] [I give] comfort and understanding when our child is upset.
13. [He yells or shouts] [I yell or shout] when our child misbehaves.
14. [He is] [I am] easy going and relaxed with our child.
15. [He allows] [I allow] our child to annoy someone else.
16. [He tel ls] [I tell] child o ur expectatio ns regar ding behavio r before the child eng ages in a n activity.
17. [He scolds and criticizes] [I scold and criticize] to make our child improve.
18. [He shows] [I show] patience with our child.
19. [He grabs] [I grab] our child when he/she is being disobedient.
20. [He states ] [I state] punis hments to o ur child a nd does n ot actuall y do them.
21. [He is] [I am] responsive to our child’s feelings or needs.
(continued on next page)
 PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE 829

APPENDIX (Cont’d)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers’ Form)

22. [He allows] [I allow] our child to give input into family rules.
23. [He argues] [I argue] with our child.
24. [He appears] [I appear] confident about parenting abilities.
25. [He gives] [I give] our child reasons why rules should be obeyed.
26. [He appears] [I appear] to be more concerned with own feelings than with our child’s feelings.
27. [He tells] [I tell] our child that we appreciate what the child tries or accomplishes.
28. [He punishes] [I punish] by putting our child off somewhere alone with little if any explanations .
29. [He helps] [I help] our child to understand the impact of behavior by encouraging our child to talk about the
consequences of his/her own actions.
30. [He is] [I am] afraid that disciplining our child for misbehavior will cause the child to not like his/her parents.
31. [He takes] [I take] our child’s desir es into account be fore asking the child t o do something.
32. [He explodes] [I explode] in anger towards our child.
33. [He is] [I am] aware of problems or concerns about our child in school.
34. [He threatens] [I threaten] our child with punishment more often than actually giving it.
35. [He expresses] [I express] affection by hugging, kissing, and holding our child.
36. [He ignores] [I ignore] our child’s misbehavior.
37. [He uses] [I use] physical punishment as a way of disciplining our child.
38. [He carries] [I carry] out discipline after our child misbehaves.
39. [He apologizes] [I apologize] t o our child when makin g a mistake in parenting.
40. [He tells] [I tell] our child what to do.
41. [He gives] [I give] into our child when the child causes a co mmotion about somethi ng.
42. [He talks it over and reasons] [I talk it over and reason] with our child when the child misbehaves.
43. [He slaps] [I slap] our child when the child misbehaves.
44. [He disagrees] [I disagree] with our child.
45. [He allows] [I allow] our child to interrupt others.

(continued on next page)

 830 C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

APPENDIX (Cont’d)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers’ Form)

46. [He has] [I have] warm and intimate times together with our child.
47. When two children are fighting, [he disciplines] [I discipline] children first and asks questions later.
48. [He encourages] [I encourage] our child to freely express (himself)(herself) even when disagreeing with
parents.
49. [He bribes] [I bribe] our child with rewards to bring about compliance.
50. [He scolds or criticizes] [I scold or criticize] when our child’s behavior doesn’t meet our expectations.
51. [He shows] [I show] r espect for o ur child’ s opinio ns by encou raging our child to e xpress them.
52. [He sets] [I set] strict well-established rules for our child.
53. [He explains] [I explain] to our child how we feel about the child’s good and bad behavior.
54. [He uses] [I use] threats as punishment with little or no justification.
55. [He takes] [I take] into acc ount o ur chil d’s pre ferences in making plan s for the family.
56. When our child asks why (he)(she) has to conform, [he states] [I state]: because I said so, or I am your parent
and I want you to.
57. [He appears] [I appear] unsure on how to solve our child’s misbehavior.
58. [He explains] [I explain] the consequences of the child’s behavior.
59. [He demands] [I demand] that our child does/do things.
60. [He cha nnels] [I chan nel] o ur chil d’s misb ehavio r into a more acceptabl e activi ty.
61. [He shoves] [I shove] our child when the child is disobedient.
62. [He emphasizes] [I emphasize] the reasons for rules.

Viewpublicationstats