International Journal of Behavioral Development # 2002 T he International Society for the

2002, 26 (6), 481–491 Study of Behavioural Development

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01650254.html DOI: 10.1080/01650250143000436

Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of

preschoolers in China and the United States*

Peixia Wua, Clyde C. Robinsona, Chongming Yanga, Craig H. Harta, Susanne F. Olsena,
Christin L. Portera, Shenghua Jin b, Jianzhong Wob , and Xinzi Wuc

This investigation was designed to extend the work of Chao (1994) by examining parenting
constructs emphasised in the Chinese culture in conjunction with parenting constructs derived and
emphasised in North America. Mothers of preschool-age children from mainland China (N ˆ 284)
and the United States (N ˆ 237) completed two self-report parenting questionnaires. One assessed
dimensions of parenting practices emphasised in China (encouragement of modesty, protection,
directiveness, shaming/love withdrawal, and maternal involvement). The second measured speciŽc
stylistic dimensions within Baumrind’s global conceptualisations of authoritative (warmth/
acceptance, reasoning/induction, democratic participation) and authoritarian (physical coercion,
verbal hostility, nonreasoning/punitive) parenting. Mostly invariant factor structures were obtained
across cultures for both measures. Results showed that the Žve parenting constructs emphasised in
China were mostly nonoverlapping and independent in both cultures. In addition, the parenting
constructs emphasised in China were relatively independent from the constructs emphasised in
North America. As anticipated, Chinese mothers scored higher than US mothers on all parenting
constructs emphasised in China except maternal involvement. For parenting constructs emphasised
in North America, Chinese mothers scored lower than US mothers on warmth/acceptance and
democratic participation, but scored higher on physical coercion.

Authoritative and authoritarian parenting style typologies have
a long tradition of inquiry in the North American literature
(Baumrind, 1971 ; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). However, recent
studies have raised questions concerning the ethnocentricity of
North American parenting constructs, particularly as pertain-
ing to diverse groups (see Baumrind, 1996; Chao, 1994;
Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Nucci, 1994). SpeciŽcally, it has
been argued that Western constructs of authoritative and
authoritarian parenting may not capture important features of
Chinese child-rearing (Chao, 1994 ; Steinberg, Dornbusch, &
Brown, 1992). For example, based on research with 50 US
immigrant Chinese mothers of preschool-age children, Chao
(1994) proposed that the indigenous Chinese concept of
‘‘training’’, which denotes concern, care, and involvement, in
the context of Žrm and controlling parenting, has important
socialisation meanings that extend beyond North American-
based parenting styles. Alternatively, Chen and colleagues
recently suggested that authoritarian and authoritative patterns
are present in mainland China, and similarly to Western
societies, have signiŽcance for children’s developmen t (Chen,
Dong, & Zhou, 1997 ; Chen et al., 2000b). Despite these
disparate views, both perspectives accommodate the notion
that parenting patterns may be emphasised differently and
retain different meanings in the two cultural contexts because
certain aspects of parenting and speciŽc child outcomes may be
valued more in one context than another (Chao, 2001; Chen,
Liu, & Li, 2000a)
T his investigation extends this line of work by examining
whether parenting constructs, regardless of the cultural
emphasis and meaning attached to them, are evident in
Chinese and North American cultures. Most studies have
used conceptually derived measures of Chinese and North
American parenting with little attention given to psychometric
developmen t in ways that would allow for direct comparisons
of constructs across cultues (e.g. Chao, 1994 ; Chen et al.,
1997). Thus, an important next step would be to create
invariant measures of what are typically thought of as Chinese
and Western parenting constructs that can be used for
assessing their relevance to each cultural context. Moreover,
little empirical research has investigated if typical parenting
practices emphasised in China might be evident in North
American settings. Although parenting constructs may be
evident across cultural settings, some patterns may receive
more emphasis because of differing cultural norms and the
goals toward which children are socialised (cf. Chao, 2001 ;
Chen et al., 2000a). Therefore, a second aim of this study was
to assess whether cultural emphases would be reected in
latent mean differences between Chinese and US mothers of

a
Brigham Young University, Provo, USA; b Beijing Normal University, China; c University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.

Correspondence should be addressed to Clyde C. Robinson, PhD,
1403 SFLC, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT 84602, USA, Tel: (801) 378-4065 ; Fax: (801 ) 378-2820 ;
E-mail: clyde_robinson@ byu.edu.
Portions of this study were presented at the XVIth Biennial meetings
of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development,
Beijing, China, July, 2000 in a paper symposium entitled ‘‘Under-
standing parenting behaviour and its correlates in the context of
Chinese culture’’. The authors express gratitude to the College of
Family, Home, and Social Sciences, the Camilla Eyring Kimball
Endowment, and the Family Studies Center at Brigham Young
University for providing funding for this work.
482 WU ET AL. / PARENT ING IN CHINA AND THE US
preschool-age children. This is important for cross-cultural
research because it helps establish measurement equivalenc e
for parenting constructs across Asian and Western cultures
(Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992).
Parenting styles and practices
Recently, reserchers have made a distinction between speciŽc
parenting styles and parenting practices (Stevenson-Hinde,
1998). Parenting practices are designed to meet speciŽc goals
such as helping children develop socially, achieve academically,
or conform to societal expectations (see Hart, Robinson,
Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998a; Mize, Russell, & Pettit,
1998). Rather than being domain-speciŽc, parenting styles
have been deŽned as ‘‘aggregates or constellations of behaviors
that describe parent-child interactions over a wide range of
situations and that are presumed to create a pervasive
interactional climate’’ (Mize & Pettit, 1997 , p. 291). This
climate, as reected in global patterns of style (e.g., Baum-
rind’s authoritative and authoritarian styles), is thought to help
children be more open to the parental input and direction that
are reected in speciŽc practices (e.g., Grusec & Goodnow,
1994).
Even though parenting styles can encompass parenting
practices, styles may transcend cultural boundaries in ways that
practices may not (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Although
distinguishing between styles and practices can be useful (Hart,
Newell, & Olsen, in press; Mize et al., 1998), some practices
may also transcend cultural boundaries. The main goal of this
investigation was to assess whether certain parenting practices
and styles can be measured in both Chinese and North
American cultural settings. If so, this would suggest that both
style and practice variables are culture-general in nature.
However, they may have varied meanings for different cultural
groups, reected in how much emphasis individuals in each
culture place upon them (cf. Chao, 2001; Chen et al., 2000a).
We anticipated that variations in cultural emphasis would be
reected in cultural latent mean differences in parenting
practice constructs. Because ‘‘global parenting style is ex-
pressed partly through parenting practices’’ as parents carry
out socialisation practices in authoritative or authoritarian ways
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993 , p. 493), there may be mean level
differences in stylistic patterns of parenting as well. We Žrst
consider how parenting practices emphasised in China are
currently conceptualised.
Parenting practices emphasised in China
Elements that help a cultural group adjust to its environmen t
are transmitted through socialisation to each generation
(Triandis, 1993). Thus, valued social behaviours are reected
in parenting practices and in the degree to which parents agree
with them (e.g., Chao, 1994). Socialisation practices empha-
sised in China include encouragement of modesty, protection,
directiveness, shaming/love withdrawal, and maternal involve-
ment.
Encouragement of modest behaviour. In the Chinese culture,
modesty is reected in moderate, humble, and social conform-
ing behaviour when interacting with others. Historically,
achieving and maintaining social order and interpersonal
harmony have been primary concerns in the traditional
collectivist Chinese society (Chen et al., 1998). For example,
the Chinese concept of jen emphasises an individual’s inter-
personal interaction style rather than individual qualities in the
developmen t of one’s personality (Hsu, 1971). To Žt in, people
in collectivist cultures ideally strive to inhibit behavioural and
emotional expression of individual needs and desires to keep
from ‘‘sticking out’’ (Ho, 1986).
Humble, modest behaviour, emphasising group over in-
dividual accomplishments and interests, is a central Confucian
principle, positively valued and encouraged in contemporary
Chinese society (T riandis, 1993). The ability to cooperate with
others and develop positive relationships is considered an index
of individual social maturity. Children who are sensitive,
modest, and cooperative are called ‘‘Guai Hai Zi’’ in
Mandarin, or ‘‘well-behaved ’’ (Chen, 1998). Consistent with
these concepts, Chao (1995) found that immigrant Chinese
mothers in the US continued to emphasise their child’s
relationships with others over individual psychological attri-
butes. Chao’s Žndings are noteworthy since the Chinese
concept of self-interdependenc e (T riandis, 1993 ) or collective
self (Wu, 1996 ) is quite different from views held in cultures
where individualism is more highly valued, such as the US
(Gorman, 1998 )
Protection. Parental protection in the Chinese cultural context
reects the parental intention of ensuring a safe environment
and fostering dependenc y on adults, which is seen as a primary
responsibility of parents of young children. From a young age
children are required to pledge reverence to their parents. At
the same time, parents have the major responsibility to govern,
teach, and discipline their child (Chao, 1994). T hese expecta-
tions are consistent with Chinese cultural values emphasising
the importance of family, the responsibility of parenthood, and
the duty to raise well-adjusted children (Žlial obligation). From
this perspective, young children are generally viewed as being
incapable of understanding (Ho & Kang, 1984). Thus,
Chinese parents typically view their primary role as a protector,
with the intent of ensuring a safe and appropriate milieu for
their young child and fostering dependenc y on parents for
meeting the child’s needs.
Compared with North American parents of young children,
Chinese parents are more protective (Chen et al., 1998; Lin &
Fu, 1990). For example, Chinese parents often encourage their
young child to stay physically close to and be dependen t on
them (Ho, 1986). Other research (Hart et al., 1998b) suggests
that Chinese mothers are prone to mediate peer contacts of
their preschool-age children in ways that foster less indepen-
dence from home than their North American counterparts.
Maternal restrictions of their child’s activities to the home are
meant to protect and foster dependency, not dominate or
inhibit. Such practices are referred to as protective restraint
(Wu, 1996). In this sense, perceiving children as incapable of
understanding could lead to high parental protection, or what
Western scholars refer to as overprotection (cf. Barber, Bean,
& Erickson, 2002 ; Rubin, Nelson, Hastings, & Asendorpf,
1999).
Shaming/love withdrawal. Chinese parents also use shaming
and love withdrawal to foster adherence to societal norms and
to promote sensitivity towards the perceptions and feelings of
others. Young children ‘‘are strongly socialised to be aware of
what others think of them, and are encouraged to act so as to
maximise the positive esteem they are granted from others
while trying to avoid incurring their disapproval’’ (Schoenhals,
1993 , p. 192). The intended outcome of this socialisation is
that children are expected to be sensitive to shame and to other
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT , 2002, 26 (6), 481–491
people’s opinions, judgements, and evaluations (Fung, 1999).
In addition to shaming, Ho (1986) indicated that compared to
North Americn mothers, Chinese mothers used more ‘‘love-
oriented’’ methods of child-rearing, such as threat of with-
drawal or actual withdrawal of love (cf. T seng & Wu, 1985).
Directiveness. Paental directiveness refers to taking a major
responsibility in regulating children’s behaviou r and academic
performance. Although somewhat akin to training ideologies
found among immigrant Chinese families (Chao, 2001), the
focus of this construct is on ways that mainland Chinese
mothers correct young children’s behaviour. Wu (1996) noted
that Chinese parents are prone to scold and criticise in
attempts to control and correct young children’s behaviour,
especially pushing them in academic pursuits (Kriger & Kross,
1972 ; Lin & Fu, 1990). As with parental protectiveness,
directiveness may reect Chinese cultural beliefs that young
children are incapable of understanding and making decisions
that are in their best interest. These beliefs and practices
contrast with Western democratic socialisation ideology that
promotes more autonomy granting in young children (Russell,
Mize, & Bissaker, in press).
Although recently challenged by Chen and colleagues
(1997, 2000b), the prevailing belief is that Chinese child-
rearing practices that reect intrusive control (or directiveness)
should not be characterised as authoritarian and, thus,
promoting negative child outcomes in the North American
sense of the term (e.g., Baumrind, 1996 ; Chao, 1994 ;
Steinberg et al., 1992). When enacted in the context of a
supportive and physically close parent-child relationship, Chao
(1994) has argued that Chinese children typically identify with
parental training ideals that promote achievemen t and con-
formity to societal expectations.
Maternal involvement. Historically, it is anticipated that
Chinese mothers will be immensely involved and devoted to
their children, especially during the early years. Chao (1994)
noted that immigrant Chinese maternal involvement and
sacriŽce may pave the road for Asian children’s high academic
achievemen t in the United States. Moreover, in mainland
China, Chen (1998) found three factors, which he labelled
authoritative, authoritarian, and protective parenting practices.
Common to all three factors, however, were items reecting
maternal care and involvement . T hese Žndings are consistent
with traditional Chinese cultural notions of the ideal mother
Žgure. Model Chinese mothers are often described as loving
and kind (Ci Ai ), especially when the child is very young. Ideas
involving the child being the sole interest and concern of the
mother, being taken everywhere with the mother, and being in
the constant care of the mother can be readily identiŽed in the
Chinese literature (Chao, 1994).
Maternal involvement may overlap somewhat with parental
protection since both reect Chinese notions of parental
responsibility. However, maternal involvement denotes more
salient features of a highly involved, close mother-child
relationship intended to help children succeed academically,
whereas parental protection is more focused on child safely and
the fostering of child dependenc e on parental governance.
Differences in parenting practices between China and
North America
Most parenting practices emphasised in China and discussed
483
thus far have been somewhat peripheral to mainstream
parenting style conceptualisations in North America. However,
protection, directiveness, shaming/love withdrawal, and ma-
ternal involvement are parenting patterns that have been
identiŽed and studied in previous Western research (e.g.
Barber, Bean, & Erikson, 2002 ; Chen et al., 1998 ; Eisenberg &
Murphy, 1997 ; Rubin et al., 1999). Likewise, conforming to
group norms reected in the modesty construct while
simultaneously valuing individual expression is deemed im-
portant in North America (Gorman, 1998 ; T riandis, 1995).
Thus, we expected to be able to measure these constructs in
our North American sample.
Even though measurable in both Chinese and North
American samples, the degree to which these socialisation
practices are emphasised may vary by culture according to
meanings that are attached to them (Chao, 2001; Chen et al.,
2000a). Furthermore, due to differing cultural norms and
expectations, Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggested that
enactment of certain parenting practices may vary across
different ecologies. Given Chinese cultural values and socia-
lisation goals, we anticipated that Chinese mothers would
score higher than North American mothers on self-perception
indicators of their enactment of these parenting practices.
Parenting styles in Chinese and North American
contexts
Baumrind’s (1971) parenting styles (e.g., authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive) have been incorporated in much
of the parenting research conducted in Western societies.
Although Baumrind and others (Maccoby & Martin, 1983)
have identiŽed multiple parenting typologies, for our cross-
cultural comparison we focused only on the authoritative and
authoritarian patterns. Permissiveness was not included in our
study because it has been shown to be an unreliable construct
with Chinese samples and may not be appropriate in the
Chinese cultural context (Chen et al., 1997; McBride-Chang
& Chang, 1998).
Authoritative parenting style. Authoritative parents (Baum-
rind, 1971, 1989, 1996 ) attempt to direct children’s activities
in a rational, issue-oriented manner. T hey reason with their
children, facilitate verbal give and take (Baumrind, 1989), and
encourage children to think independentl y and to respond in
prosocial ways (Baumrind, 1996). Also, authoritative parents
are ‘‘affectively responsive’’ by being loving, supportive, and
encouraging children’s individual interests (Baumrind, 1989).
Thus, authoritative parenting is comprised of three distinct
stylistic dimensions relevant to preschool-age children (Hart et
al., in press). These are reected in (1) a high degree of
warmth, nurturance, and acceptance (i.e., positive emotional
connection with the child), (2) a high degree of psychological
autonomy granting or democratic participation, and (3) a high
degree of regulation or behavioural control that places fair and
consistent limits on child behaviour, primarily through reason-
ing about rules and establishing consequences for misbeha-
viour (e.g., Barber & Olsen, 1997; Baumrind, 1996 ; Hart et al.,
1992).
T his study builds upon research exploring parenting styles
with older children in China (Chen et al., 1997 , 2000a) by
focusing on younger children. Moreover, the three stylistic
dimensions of connection, regulation, and autonomy granting
were included for cross-cultural comparisons (see Darling &
484 WU ET AL. / PARENT ING IN CHINA AND THE US
Steinberg, 1993; Gray & Steinberg, 1999 ; Smetana, 1995). We
anticipated that Chinese mothers would perceive themselves as
engaging their children in less autonomy granting (i.e.,
democratic participation) and more limit setting compared
with their North American counterparts. Although Chinese
parenting practices reect high protection and involvement, it
has been hypothesised that Chinese parents are less openly
emotionally expressive of their affection than North American
parents (Lin & Fu, 1990). Accordingly, our measure was
designed to capture overt displays of affection and acceptance.
We also expected Chinese mothers to be less demonstrative in
their displays of connectedness.
Authoritarian parenting style. Authoritarian parents value
obedience, favour punitive and forceful measures, believe
children should accept their parents’ word for what is right,
and do not encourage verbal give and take (Baumrind, 1989).
Authoritarian parenting style, as measured in this study,
included items representing three harsh disciplinary dimen-
sions of (1) physical coercion (e.g., physical punishment), (2)
verbal hostility (e.g., yelling, arguing), and (3) nonreasoning/
punitive (e.g. punishes without explanation, threatens with no
justiŽcation) that went beyond the construct of verbal scolding
and criticism reected in the Chinese directiveness construct.
Directive practices may or may not occur outside a climate of
harshness and hostility that are denoted in authoritarian
parenting styles. Past research has consistently indicated that
Chinese parents are more likely than North American parents
to use physical coercion and verbal hostility in parent-child
interactions (Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998 ; Steinberg et al.,
1992). We anticipated similar Žndings in this study. As with
authoritativeness, this investigation was designed to extend our
knowledge of ways that dimensions of authoritarian parenting
styles are relevant in each culture (cf. Hart et al., 2000a).
Contributions of this research
A major contribution of this investigation is that, to our
knowledge, it is the Žrst attempt to make direct comparisons
between mainland Chinese and North American cultures using
invariant (comparable) measures of parenting constructs
derived from multi-sample structural equation modelling
(SEM) techniques. SEM procedures model measurement
error and the intercorrelations among the indicators of a
construct. Using SEM techniques, we sought to determine
whether statistical models derived from our parent measures
were invariant across cultures. T his is necessary for direct
comparisons across latent constructs derived from each
cultural setting (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989 ; Little,
1997 ; Widaman & Reise, 1997).
Method
Participants
Two samples comprised of mothers of 553 preschool-age
children from two diverse cultural contexts participated in this
study. Sample one included mothers of 284 children (154 boys
and 130 girls) attending one of two nursery schools in Beijing,
China. Sample two was from an urban moderate-sized
community in the Western United States. It consisted of
mothers of 237 children (121 boys and 116 girls) attending one
of two early childhood programmes. Maternal participation
rates from each classroom involved in the research were above
70% in both cultural settings.
Mothers in the two samples were relatively well educated,
having completed an average of 2 to 3 years of education
beyond high school (Chinese: M ˆ 13.21, SD ˆ 2.44; US: M
ˆ 14.00, SD ˆ 2.39). Chinese mothers had a mean age of 32.9
years (SD ˆ 3.7) and US mothers’ average age was 30.2 years
(SD ˆ 5.4). T he mean age for the children in the Chinese
sample was 62.6 months (SD ˆ 9.3) and the average age for
US children was 57.2 months (SD ˆ 5.9).
Measures
Items comprising our parenting styles and parenting practice
measures were designed to reect features of Chinese and
North American child-rearing as reviewed in the literature.
T he items emphasised in China were also derived, in part,
from information gleaned in four informal semistructured
focus group interviews in both Beijing and in the US. Each
group was comprised of six to seven mothers of preschoolers.
Mothers described their most important child-rearing respon-
sibilities, what were appropriate ways to handle various
hypothetical child misbehaviour scenarios, and speciŽc con-
cerns about helping their children conform to societal
expectations. The majority of responses mapped onto parent-
ing themes emphasised in China (as well as onto authoritative
and authoritarian dimensions) in each cultural context. After
these general themes were identiŽed, mothers were asked to
consider sample items derived from an item bank we had
developed , borrowed, or modiŽed from other parenting
measures (e.g., Barber, 1996 ; Block, 1965 ; Chao, 1994). T hey
then provided feedback as to each item’s relevance to the
themes identiŽed and helped eliminate items that were unclear
or confusing. This process resulted in eliminating approxi-
mately 20% of the initial items. New items were developed
when deemed necessary. Interviewing mothers helped assure
that Chinese and North American parenting views mapped
onto the constructs discussed in our literature review and that
they were relevant to everyday parenting in both cultures.
Parents involved in focus group interviews were different from
those who participated in this study.
Prior to pilot testing in focus groups, all items were
successfully forward- and back-translated by Chinese linguists
who were uent in both Chinese and English. Translators
received assistance from the investigators for clariŽcations
regarding difŽcult-to-translate items. T hese procedures as-
sured that the items were conceptually equivalent, meaning that
they would be similarly understood by parents in both settings,
even though they may carry somewhat different psychological
meanings (see Berry, 1989 ; Hart et al., 1998a, 2000b). New
items developed from focus group interviews were subjected to
the same translation procedures. For all measures, mothers
were asked to evaluate each item on the questionnaires, based
on their perceptions of how they interact with their preschool-
age target child.
Parenting dimensions emphasised in North America. A version of
the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ;
Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 2001) was completed
by mothers from both samples. A modiŽed PSDQ was
contrived using procedures described later and included 26
items forming two stylistic patterns of parenting: authoritative
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT , 2002, 26 (6), 481–491 485

and authoritarian. The authoritative pattern consisted of three Table 2

stylistic dimensions: (1) connection—warmth/acceptance (e.g., Confirmatory factor pattern of parenting practices emphasised in
expresses affection by hugging, kissing, etc.), seven items; (2) China
regulation—reasoning/induction (e.g. gives child reasons why
rules should be obeyed), four items; and (c) autonomy Factor loadings
granting—democratic participation (e.g., allows child to give Item content China US
input into family rules), four items. The authoritarian pattern
consisted of three stylistic dimensions: (1) verbal hostility (e.g., Encouragement of modesty
yells and shouts when child misbehaves), three items; (2) Discourage child from strongly expressing his/her .57 .41
physical coercion (e.g., spanks when child is disobedient), Žve point of view
items; and (3) nonreasoning/punitive (takes away privileges Discourage child from proudly acknowledging .46 .40
compliments
with little if any explanations), three items. Mothers rated
Discourage child from appearing overconŽdent .42 .72
themselves on each item by assessing ‘‘how often they Discourage child from showing off his/her skills .61 .59
perceived themselves exhibiting parenting behaviours reected
in each item’’ using a 5-point scale anchored by 1 (never) and 5 Protection
It is important to supervise all of child’s activities .52 .62
(always).
Expect child to be close by when playing .58 .66
Overly worry about child getting hurt .69 .51
Parenting practices emphasised in China. Parenting practices
emphasised in the Chinese culture were assessed using an item Maternal involvement
bank that included 5 to 7 items representing each of the Mothers express love by helping children to .47 .59
parenting constructs. Using procedures described next, this succeed in school
was reduced to an 18-item measure including the following A mother’s sole interest is in taking care of her .55 .75
children
constructs: encouragemen t of modesty (e.g., discourages child
Children should be in the constant care of .40 .53
from showing off his/her skills and knowledge to get attention), their mothers
four items; protection (e.g., expects child to be close by when Mothers should do everything for their .45 .75
playing), three items; directiveness (e.g., tells child what to do), children’s education
three items; shaming/love withdrawal (e.g., tells child that he/
Shaming/Love withdrawal
she should be ashamed when he/she misbehaves), four items;
Tell child we get embarrassed when doesn’t .60 .62
and beliefs about maternal involvement (e.g., a mother’s sole meet expectations
interest is in taking care of her children), four items. Items were Make child feel guilty when doesn’t meet our .67 .64
rated on a 5-point scale anchored by 1 (never) and 5 (always). expectations
Items that were deemed to reect mother-child relationship Tell child that he/she should be ashamed when .52 .48
ideologies concerning maternal involvement were selected misbehaving
from Chao’s ‘‘training’’ questionnaire (1994) administered to Less friendly with child if he/she doesn’t see .41 .54
an immigrant Chinese sample (N ˆ 50) in the United States. things our way
Correlations between mothers’ education and the parenting Directiveness
constructs emphasised in the Chinese and North American Scolds or criticises when child’s behaviour does .50 .46
cultures are shown in T able 1. The correlation pattern for the not meet our expectations
Chinese sample is that the more education the mothers have Demands child do things .53 .41
the less they report engaging in speciŽc traditional cultural Tells child what to do .41 .57
parenting constructs (i.e., maternal involvement, protection,
directiveness) emphasised in China and the more they report acceptance, democratic participation) emphasised in North
engaging in certain parenting constructs (i.e., warmth/ America. For the US sample, the more education the mothers
have the less they report engaging in maternal involvement ,
Table 1 encouragemen t of modesty, nonreasoning, and warmth/invol-
Correlations between mothers’ education and parenting constructs vement. These relationships should be interpreted with some
Mothers’ education
caution since the education variation of mothers within each
sample is somewhat restricted.
Parenting constructs Chinese US

Emphasised in China
Shaming/Love withdrawal ¡.07 .16 Results
Maternal involvement ¡.42** ¡.31*
Protection ¡.22* .02
Measurement model of parenting practices emphasised
Encouragement of modesty .03 ¡.23*
Directiveness ¡.34* .12
in China
Emphasised in North America Initially, we used a multi-sample conŽrmatory factor analysis
Warmth/Acceptance .27* ¡.23* (MCFA) procedure to test the measurement model of the Žve
Reasoning/Induction ¡.02 ¡.10 latent constructs derived from the Chinese parenting literature
Democratic participation .52** ¡.09 (e.g., modesty encouragement, protection, directiveness,
Physical coercion ¡.10 ¡.01
shaming/love withdrawal, and beliefs about maternal involve-
Verbal hostility ¡.15* ¡.03
Nonreasoning/Punitive ¡.02 ¡.17*
ment). We wanted to determine whether factor loadings could
be identiŽed that were invariant across both the Chinese and
* p 5 .05; ** p 5 .001. US samples. T ypically, invariance of factor loadings (Little,
486 WU ET AL. / PARENT ING IN CHINA AND THE US
Table 3
Latent correlations of parenting practices emphasised in China for the Chinese and US samples
Shaming/Love Maternal
withdrawal involvement
Shaming/Love withdrawal 1.00 .21*
(.02)
Maternal involvement 1.00
Protection
Encourage modesty
Directiveness
* p 5 .01; ** p 5 .001.
a
Correlations of the constructs for the US sample are in parentheses.
1997), or at least partial invariance (Byrne et al., 1989), is
essential for identifying similar constructs in order to compare
latent means cross-culturally (Widaman & Reise, 1997). In
order to provide the best model Žt and to eliminate items that
did not help in meeting at least partial invariance criteria, a
series of MCFA was performed (cf. Byrne, 1989; T omada &
Schneider, 1997). A conŽgurably invariant measurement
model emerged that estimated the same factor structure
without metric equality constraints (unconstrained) across
the two samples, and served as a baseline model, which
provided a fairly good Žt to the data: w2 (244) ˆ 364.77, p ˆ
.00, w2 /df ˆ 1.45, GFI ˆ .93, T LI ˆ .88, CFI ˆ .90. T he
standardised factor loadings for the baseline model are
presented in T able 2. 1 A model constraining the factor
loadings (except two of the modesty encouragement items)
to be equal across the two samples produced a chi square that
did not differ signiŽcantly from the baseline model, w2 (11)diff
ˆ 13.78, p ˆ .25. These results suggest that most of the factor
loadings for the parenting constructs emphasised in China are
invariant (comparable) across the two cultures. Items compris-
ing this solution were deemed to represent the constructs well.
For both the Chinese and US mothers (see Table 3), the
patterns of correlations among the Žve latent parenting
constructs emphasised in China were relatively low (Chinese
f ˆ .03 to .35; US: f ˆ .02 to .49). For both samples there
was one exception, a moderately strong correlation between
shaming/love withdrawal and directiveness (Chinese: f ˆ .54;
US: f ˆ .66). These Žndings indicate that most of these
constructs are relatively independen t in both cultures. T o test
whether shaming/love withdrawal and directiveness constructs
are well distinguished, a four-factor model combining the items
from both of these dimensions onto a single factor was
compared to the Žve-factor baseline model. The goodness of
1
In Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), only three or four indicators are
needed in order for the measurement model to be over identiŽed. Any more than
that may be superuous (Kline, 1998). Factor loadings in this study were
acceptable based on prior studies indicating that they are typically under-
estimated in SEM when using Likert-type scaling. This is due to the treatment of
the ordinal data (Bollen, 1989; Coenders, Satorra, & Saris, 1997; Rigdon &
Ferguson, 1991). Factor loadings of .40 and above are deemed reliable when
sample sizes are greater than 150 (Stevens, 1996). CoefŽcient alpha is a
questionable indicator of reliability and is not typically reported in conŽrmatory
factor analysis (Komaroff, 1997; Schmitt, 1996).
a
Encourage
Protection modesty Directiveness
.13 .20* .54**
(.07) (.14) (.63)**
.35* .30* .34*
(.49)** (.14) (.04)
1.00 .03 .23*
(.05) (.39)*
1.00 .06
(.32)*
1.00
Žt decreased slightly, w2 (252) ˆ 410.59, p 5 .005, w2 /df ˆ
1.62, GFI ˆ .92, TLI ˆ .84, CFI ˆ .87, and differed
signiŽcantly from the Žve-factor model, w2 (8)diff ˆ 45.82, p 5
.001. Thus, the Žve-factor baseline solution provided a better
estimate of the parenting constructs emphasised in China for
both cultures.
Measurement model of authoritative and
authoritarian styles emphasised in North America
As with the parenting model emphasised in China, a series of
MCFA was performed (cf. Byrne, 1989 ; Tomada & Schneider,
1997), with an eye towards dropping items that did not help
meet at least partial invariance criteria. Items representing an
authoritative parenting style, which includes three latent
constructs (warmth/acceptance, reasoning/induction, and de-
mocratic participation), were subjected to an MCFA. A similar
procedure was followed for identifying the authoritarian
construct dimensions (verbal hostility, physical coercion,
nonreasoning/punitive). A 15-item, unconstrained three-factor
model of the authoritative constructs emerged that Žt both the
US and Chinese samples well: w2 (168) ˆ 288.40, p 5 .001,
2
w /df ˆ 1.72, GFI ˆ .93, T LI ˆ .91, and CFI ˆ .93. T he
unconstrained model of the three authoritarian constructs also
provided a fairly good Žt: w2 (76) ˆ 186.90, p 5 .001, w2 /df ˆ
2.46, GFI ˆ .94, T LI ˆ .87, and CFI ˆ .91, and was
comprised of 11 items.
T he cross-cultural comparability of the authoritative and
authoritarian constructs was tested using the chi-square
differences between the unconstrained and constrained mea-
surement models. Factor loadings were found to be invariant
across the two samples for the authoritative constructs,
2
w (12)diff ˆ 14.94, p ˆ .25, and the authoritarian constructs,
2
w (8)diff ˆ 14.48, p ˆ .07. T hus, similar constructs of
authoritative and authoritarian were identiŽed in both the
North American and Chinese cultures. Standardised factor
loadings for the authoritative parenting constucts are presented
in T able 4, and for the authoritarian constructs in Table 5.
For the authoritative stylistic pattern, the intercorrelations
among the warmth/acceptance, reasoning/induction, and
democratic participation latent constructs were .56, .72, and
.76, respectively, for the US sample and .80, .82, and .85,
respectively, for the Chinese sample. T o test whether these
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT , 2002, 26 (6), 481–491 487

Table 4 Table 5
Within-group completely standardised solution from multi-sample Within-group completely standardised solution from multi-sample
confirmatory factor analysis of authoritative parenting styles and confirmatory factor analysis of authoritative parenting styles and
dimensions emphasised in North America dimensions emphasised in North America

Factor loadings Factor loadings

Item content: Authoritative style China US Item content: Authoritative style China US

Warmth/Acceptance (connection) Physical coercion

Gives praise when child is good .61 .57 Uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining .55 .47
Expresses affection by hugging, kissing, and .53 .60 child
holding child Spanks when child is disobedient .71 .64
T ells child that we appreciate what he/she tries to .64 .57 Slaps when child misbehaves .71 .58
accomplish Grabs child when he/she is being disobedient .67 .59
Gives comfort and understanding when child is .60 .60 Guides child by punishment more than by reason .59 .52
upset
Verbal hostility
Show sympathy when child is hurt or frustrated .44 .47
Explodes in anger towards child .70 .69
Aware of problems or concerns about child in .53 .47
Yells or shouts when child misbehaves .62 .67
school
Argues with child .65 .51
Encourages child to talk about his/her troubles .62 .57
Non-reasoning/Punitive
Reasoning/Induction (regulation)
Punishes by taking privileges away with little .49 .57
T alks it over and reasons with child when .60 .65
explanation
misbehaving
Punishes by putting child off with little or no .55 .46
Encourages child to talk about consequences of .60 .70
justiŽcation
behaviour
When child asks why he/she has to conform, says: .40 .46
Explains the consequences of the child’s behaviour .40 .57
because I said so
Gives child reasons why rules should be obeyed .59 .62

Democratic participation (autonomy granting)

Apologises to child when making a mistake in .42
parenting
Allows child to give input into family rules .44
T akes child’s desire into account before asking .40
to do something
Encourages child to express him/herself even .40
when disagreeing with parents
constructs were well distinguished, a single-factor model
combining the items from all three dimensions onto a single
factor was compared to a three-factor baseline model. T he
goodness of Žt decreased substantially, w2 (175) ˆ 414.95,
2
p 5 .001, w /df ˆ 2.37, GFI ˆ .90, T LI ˆ .84, CFI ˆ .86, and
differed signiŽcantly from the three-factor model, w2 (7)d iff ˆ
106.55, p 5 .001, indicating that the three-factor model was a
better Žt of the data.
For the authoritarian stylistic construct, the intercorrela-
tions among the physical coercion, verbal hostility, and
nonreasoning/punitive latent constructs were .80, .72, and
.60, respectively, for the US sample and .67, .65, and .69
respectively for the Chinese sample. As with the authoritative
pattern, a model combining the items from all three
authoritarian dimensions onto a single factor was compared
to a three-factor baseline model. The goodness of Žt was
substantially lower, w2 (84) ˆ 297.65, p 5 .001, w2 /df ˆ 3.54,
GFI ˆ .91, T LI ˆ .77, CFI ˆ .86, and differed signiŽcantly
from the three-factor model, w2 (8)diff ˆ 110.75, p 5 .001,
again indicating that the three-factor model was a better Žt of
the data.
.46 dimensions revealed generally nonoverlappin g constructs (f ˆ
¡.39 to .15). T he strongest correlations were between warmth/
.44 acceptance and shaming/love withdrawal (f ˆ ¡.52), and
.46 between warmth/acceptance and maternal involvemen t (f ˆ
.41). In the Chinese sample, the constructs were also generally
.50
nonoverlapping (f ˆ ¡.12 to .34). T he strongest correlations
were between directiveness and reasoning/induction (f ˆ .56),
directiveness and warmth/acceptance (f ˆ .29), and between
protection and democratic participation (f ˆ .34).
Latent correlations between parenting practices emphasised
in China and the three authoritarian stylistic parenting
dimensions presented in Table 6 also revealed that most of
the constructs were fairly independen t in the US sample (f ˆ
¡.06 to .31), with the exception of four moderately strong
correlations (directiveness and physical coercion, .64; direc-
tiveness and verbal hostility, .63; directiveness and nonreason-
ing, .46; shaming/love withdrawal and verbal hostility, .61).
There was no relationship between directiveness and verbal
hostility or nonreasoning in the Chinese sample. T he generally
nonoverlapping pattern with the US sample was also similar in
the Chinese sample (f ˆ ¡.10 to .44). T he two moderate
correlations were between shaming/love withdrawal and non-
reasoning/punitive (f ˆ .44) and between directiveness and
physical coercion (f ˆ .42). All of the latent correlations in
Table 6 were estimated by combining the measurement
models (parenting practices emphasised in China with
authoritative parenting; parenting practices emphasised in
China with authoritarian parenting) from the two conŽrmatory
factor analyses.

Relations between parenting constructs emphasised in Latent mean comparisons

China and North America Ideally, cross-cultural differences in the means of the latent
As seen in Table 6, in the US sample, correlations between constructs should be compared when all factor loadings are
parenting practice constructs emphasised in China and the invariant across all the cultural samples (Little, 1997 ; Wida-
latent constructs of the three authoritative stylistic parenting man & Reise, 1997). As noted earlier, factor loadings for the
488 WU ET AL. / PARENT ING IN CHINA AND THE US

Table 6
a
Latent correlations between parenting practices emphasised in China and parenting dimension constructs emphasised in North America

Parenting styles and dimensions emphasised in North America

Authoritative style Authoritarian style

Warmth/ Reasoning Democratic Physical Verbal Nonreasoning

Practices emphasised in China Acceptance Induction participation coercion hostility punitive

Encouragement of modesty ¡.05 .08 ¡.06 ¡.07 .01 .15

(¡.30)* (.06) (¡.33)* (.27)* (.31)* (.21)
Protection .23* .24* .34* .07 .21* .05
(.14) (.08) (.13) (.05) (.05) (.30)*
Directiveness .29* .56** ¡.08 .42** ¡.10 .01
(¡.36)* (¡.16) (¡.39)* (.64)** (.63)** (.46)**
Shaming/Love withdrawal .01 .24* .08 .20* .14 .44**
(¡.52)** (¡.23)* (¡.36)* (.41)** (.61)** (.30)*
Maternal involvement ¡.12 ¡.02 .00 .18 .16 .19
(.41)** (.14) (.15) (.07) (¡.06) (.19)
a
*p 5 .01; ** p 5 .001. Correlations of the constructs for the US sample are in parentheses.

items comprising most of the parenting constructs met this
requirement, with the exception of the modesty construct.
However, latent means can still be compared across samples
when partial invariance of factor loadings are identiŽed (Byrne
et al., 1989). For the measurement model to be identiŽed, the
means of the observed variables were constrained to be equal
across groups.
Table 7 presents the latent means of the Chinese mothers
for the parenting practices emphasised in China and author-
itative-authoritarian stylistic dimensions with the latent means
of the US mothers constrained. As can be seen from Table 7,
statistically signiŽcant differences were found for four of the
parenting practice constructs emphasised in China. Chinese
mothers’ latent means were higher than those of their US
counterparts on encouragemen t of modesty, protection,
shaming/love withdrawal, and directiveness. For the author-
itative parenting stylistic dimensions, Chinese mothers’ latent
means were lower on warmth/acceptance and lower on
democratic participation. For the authoritarian parenting
stylistic dimension Chinese mothers’ latent means were higher
than those of US mothers only on the use of physical coercion.
Discussion
only measurable but generally nonoverlappin g and indepen-
dent in both cultures. In addition, the parenting practice
constructs emphasised in China were relatively independen t
from the stylistic constructs emphasised in North America.
T hese Žndings reinforce arguments made in the literature
addressing the importance of using ecologically valid frame-
works and functionally equivalent measures in cross-cultural
studies (e.g., Little, 1997).
Parenting is considered to be heavily inuenced by cultural
background . T hus, parents within speciŽc cultures may have
varying beliefs about and use different practices in child-
rearing which provide a developmental niche for children living
in diverse contexts (Chen et al., 1998 ; Super & Harkness,
1986). Consistent with this concept, we found that even
though several parenting practice constructs derived from
Table 7
Latent mean comparisons of parenting practices emphasised in
China and authoritative and authoritarian parenting dimensions
a
emphasised in North America
Chinese mothers’ latent means
with US means constrained
Mean t p5

A major contribution of this research is that a model of Parenting practices emphasised in China
parenting constructs emphasised and derived empirically from Encouragement of modesty .10 2.92 .01
indigenous Chinese cultural notions was found to be applicable Protection .19 2.66 .01
Directiveness 1.03 11.86 .001
for mothers in the US. This indicates that parenting practice
Shaming/Love withdrawal 1.80 20.62 .001
constructs that are highly valued in China are measurable in Maternal involvement .03 0.48 —
the US, even though their role may have been emphasised less
in the North American literature. For reasons noted in the Authoritative dimensions emphasised
Introduction, these practices, although measurable in our in North America
Warmth/Acceptance ¡.32 ¡6.38 .001
North American sample, are not likely to stem from the same
Reasoning/Induction .02 0.29 —
underlying socialisation goals that are prevalent in Chinese Democratic participation ¡.15 ¡2.24 .05
society. Our research also suggested that a model of parenting
constructs derived from global parenting styles emphasised in Authoritarian dimensions emphasised
North America was also relevant for mainland Chinese in North America
Physical coercion .19 4.77 .01
mothers. In addition, results of latent mean comparisons
Verbal hostility .04 0.85 —
suggest that Chinese and US mothers score signiŽcantly Nonreasoning/Punitive .05 ¡0.47 —
differently from each other on most of the parenting style
a
and practice constructs. Findings also showed that the Žve SigniŽcant differences between latent means were determined by a
parenting practice constructs emphasised in China were not critical ratio.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT , 2002, 26 (6), 481–491
Chinese cultural notions could also be empirically identiŽed in
the US sample, signiŽcant cultural differences in parenting
existed between these two cultures. For example, one
distinctive feature unique to parenting practices emphasised
in China involves the strong focus on modesty and cooperation
among young children. Our results indicate that Chinese
mothers perceived themselves as engaging in greater modesty
encouragement than US mothers. These Žndings support
those who argue that modesty is more valued in collectivist
societies (Triandis, 1995), where individuals are encouraged to
restrain their personal desires for the beneŽt and interests of
the society at large (Chen et al., 1998).
In addition to modesty, shaming/love withdrawal is viewed
as a dominant moral training technique for achieving speciŽc
socialisation goals requiring members in the Chinese society to
acquire sensitivity to shame and to be aware of other person’s
opinions, judgements, and evaluations. Thus, the goal of
shaming/love withdrawal may be to motivate the child to take
responsibility for his/her own actions (Fung, 1999). Since
shaming/love withdrawal may be more positively valued in the
Chinese culture, it is not difŽcult to understand why Chinese
mothers in this study report using this pattern of parenting
more often than US mothers.
The current study also indicates that Chinese mothers view
themselves as being more protective with their young children
than US mothers. T his result is largely consistent with previous
reports and speculations in the literature (e.g., Chen et al.,
1998 ; Kriger & Kross, 1972; Lin & Fu, 1990). Chen (in press)
suggested that high parental protectiveness appears to Žt the
Chinese culture since it is associated with children’s beha-
vioural inhibition, which is considered an adaptive outcome in
Chinese society. In contrast, shy and inhibited behaviours are
regarded as socially immature and maladaptive in North
American individualistic cultures (Rubin & Asendorpf,
1993), and are often responded to with overprotective
parenting (Rubin et al., 1999). Thus, protective parenting,
which may lead to maladaptive outcomes for Western children,
may be negatively valued and discouraged in an individualistic
culture where independen t exploratory behaviour is more
highly encouraged.
Similar to protectiveness, it was anticipated that Chinese
mothers would report exhibiting more directiveness with their
children than US mothers. Our Žndings are consistent with
those of others who found Chinese mothers placing high
demands on their children’s after-school activities (Wu, 1996 )
and using scolding and criticisms to foster self-control (Lin &
Fu, 1990). In the US, directive parenting is linked to
Baumrind’s conceptualisation of an authoritarianism style
(Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995 ) and, thus, may
be viewed negatively by more educated parents who value
autonomy granting with their children (Rodgers, 1998 ; Russell
et al., in press).
Surprisingly, we found no signiŽcant cultural differences on
the belief construct of maternal involvement using four items
from Chao’s (1994) original Chinese Child-Rearing Ideology
Items . Chao did Žnd a cultural difference in studying
immigrant Chinese mothers in the US on two of the four
items making up this construct. Our noncultural difference on
this construct may be due to a greater equality in parental roles
for parents in mainland China. Since 1950, the laws of the
People’s Republic of China have emphasised the joint
responsibility of fathers and mothers for child-rearing (Chen
et al., 2000a). In addition, as many mainland Chinese mothers
489
as fathers have been employed outside the home. Thus, both
the ofŽcial ideology and the high rate of maternal employment
might encourage more equal parenting (Berndt, Cheung, Lau,
Hau, & Lew, 1993). As a result, Chinese mothers may be less
likely to endorse sole maternal responsibility for child-rearing.
Our Žndings suggest that even though social changes have
taken place in mainland China during the last two decades,
current parenting beliefs and practices may still be inuenced
by some Confucian traditions. For example, the Confucian
tradition of social order emphasises developing harmonious
interpersonal relationships. Likewise, in contemporary Chinese
society, children are encouraged to be sensitive, modest, and
cooperative (‘‘Guai Hai Zi’’) or ‘‘well-behaved’’ (Chen, 1998).
Our Žndings that Chinese mothers score higher on modesty
encouragemen t support the continued inuence of Confucian
ideals even though they may not be directly connected by
parents to Confucianism in modern China (cf. Lau & Yeung,
1996).
Our results also support Wolf ’s (1970) assertion that
cultural child-rearing practices evolve slowly and ‘‘practices
among Chinese are not particularly open to Western inuences
and are more likely to accurately reect traditional goals and
values’’ (p. 39). T hus, one implication for future researchers is
the need to explore further the impact of Confucian principles
on family interactions and relationships to better understand
socialisation processes in the Chinese family.
As far as cultural notions of parenting constructs empha-
sised in North America are concerned, this study also
contributes to the literature by examining empirically derived
stylistic dimensions of authoritative and authoritarian parent-
ing rather than just overall parenting styles. Even though our
results from the multi-sample conŽrmatory factor analysis
indicate that there are broad commonalities between the US
and Chinese samples in the basic overall structures of
authoritative and authoritarian parenting, as anticipated,
Chinese mothers scored signiŽcantly higher on physical
coercion and lower on warmth/acceptance and democratic
participation than did US mothers. Our Žndings of higher
reported levels of physical coercion in the Chinese sample are
consistent with many previous studies examining overall
authoritarian parenting (e.g. Chao, 1994 ; Chen et al., 1997).
Also, our results indicating that Chinese mothers scored lower
on warmth/acceptance are consistent with those of Chen et al.
(1998), who reported that Chinese mothers scored signiŽ-
cantly lower on acceptance than their Caucasian counterparts
in Canada (cf. Lin & Fu, 1990). Our Žndings, however, are less
consistent with those of Chao (1994), who found that
immigrant Chinese mothers in the US did not score lower on
overall authoritativeness than Caucasion mothers. Since
parenting does not take place in a cultural vacuum, one could
speculate that immigrant Chinese mothers may be inuenced
by some parenting notions emphasised in the North American
culture.
One beneŽt of studying speciŽc parenting practices and
stylistic dimensions is that cultural speciŽc patterns may
emerge. For example, our Žndings indicated that for US
mothers, a positive relationship was found between shaming/
love withdrawal and verbal hostility. This relationship was not
apparent for Chinese mothers. Thus suggests that the practice
of shaming children towards particular socialisation goals in
China may be viewed quite differently from verbally hostile
parenting styles that are more reective of a pervasive
interactional climate. US mothers, however, may view both
490 WU ET AL. / PARENT ING IN CHINA AND THE US
verbal hostility and shaming/love withdrawal as being similarly
associated as part of the interactional climate of the home (cf.
Barber, 1996).
Likewise, directive practices were associated with verbal
hostility and nonreasoning/punitive authoritarian parenting in
our North American sample but not in the Chinese sample.
Yet, directiveness was associated with reasoning/induction and
warmth/acceptance in the Chinese but not in the US sample.
This reinforces the view that directiveness may serve a different
function in Chinese society in ways noted in our Introduction
(i.e. used for teaching self-control rather than for punishing).
Also supporting conceptualisations in the Introduction, direc-
tiveness was related to maternal involvement in the Chinese
but not in the US sample. Yet, directiveness was associated
with less autonomy granting (democratic participation) in the
US but not in the Chinese sample. This suggests that maternal
involvemen t and directiveness may go hand in hand with
Chinese mothering to foster dependenc e in young children.
However, US mothers appear to emphasise less directive
approaches in an attempt to foster more autonom y than
dependenc y in their involvement with preschoolers.
Similar to other studies of this nature (e.g., Chao, 1994),
this study is limited by the sole use of self-report data gathered
from parents. Although some studies have indicted moderate
agreement between observational and self-report measures of
parenting (e.g. Kochanska, Kuczynski, & Radke-Yarrow,
1989 ; Pettit, Clawson, Dodge, & Bates, 1996), future research
could beneŽt by using multi-method assessments that incor-
porate observational methodologies as well (e.g., Chen et al.,
1998). As a further note of caution, one should keep in mind
that mean differences in self-ratings could be due to response
sets reecting different societal norms. T his may result in self-
ratings that do not reect a common metric across cultures
(Triandis, 1995). For example, in Confucian societies, there is
the doctrine of the mean (Zong Yong Ahi Dao in Mandarin),
which encourages the avoidanc e of extremes. Thus, Chinese
mothers may have rated their own parenting more in
accordance with culturally inuenced norms than in accor-
dance with their actual behaviour. Notwithstanding this
possibility, Žndings were consistent with prior research in this
area. Because it is unclear to what extent response bias may
have inuenced the results of this investigation, observational
studies would be helpful for validating our Žndings.
Another limitation is that the samples represented more
highly educated mothers from urban areas in both cultural
contexts. In addition, it cannot be assumed that Žndings from
samples from the speciŽc cities/areas within the cultures
(Intermountain US West and Beijing) can be generalised to
the larger North American and Chinese culture (see Lai,
Zhang, & Wang, 2000). This does not allow our conclusions to
be generalised to families representing more diverse socio-
economic and ethnic background s in both cultures. Despite
these limitations, our Žndings build upon prior work by further
reŽning conceptual frameworks for understanding parenting
constructs emphasised in China that pertain to parents of
young children. The next step would be to investigate further
how these parenting patterns are associated with speciŽc child
outcomes in each cultural setting and build upon the work that
has already been conducted in this area regarding some of
these constructs (e.g., Chen et al., 1997 ; 1998; 2000b; Olsen
et al., 2002). T his would compliment recent research exploring
invariant measures of child outcomes in Chinese and North
American settings (Hart et al., 2000b).
In summary, the results of this study suggest that both US
and Chinese parenting may include parenting practices
emphasised in the Chinese cultural tradition as well as
parenting style dimensions emphasised in North America.
Even though these parenting constructs are measurable in both
cultures, future research should continue to include both an
emic (arising from the culture) and etic (similar across
cultures) approach to further investigate the underlying
philosophies that may differentiate ways that these parenting
constructs are enacted in diverse cultural settings (Berry,
1989).
Manuscript received July 2000
Revised manuscript received October 2001
References
Barber, B.K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected
construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.
Barber, B.K., Bean, R.L., & Erickson, L.D. (2002). Violating the self: Parental
psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive
parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Barber, B.K., & Olsen, J.A. (1997). Socialisation in context: Connection,
regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with
peers. Journal of Adolescent References, 12, 287–315.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monograph , 4, 1–103.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child
development today and tomorrow (pp. 349–378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45,
405–414.
Berry, J.W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalisation of
a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology , 24, 721–735.
Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural
psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berndt, T.J., Cheung, P.C., Lau, S., Hau, K. & Lew, W.J.F. (1993). Perception
of parenting in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: Sex differences
and society differences. Developmental Psychology, 29, 156–164.
Block, J.H. (1965). The child-rearing practices report: A technique for evaluating
parental socialization orientations . Berkeley, CA: University of California,
Institute of Human Development.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John
Wiley.
Byrne, B.M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for
conŽ rmatory factor-analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence
of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement
invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
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.
Chao, R.K. (1995). Chinese and European American cultural models of the self
reected in mother‘s child-rearing beliefs. Ethos, 23, 328–354.
Chao, R.K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style
for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72,
1832–1843.
Chen, X. (1998). The changing Chinese family: Resources, parenting practices,
and children’s social-emotional problems. In U.P. Gielen & A.L. Comunian
(Eds.), Family and family therapy in international perspective. Trieste, Italy:
Edizioni LINT.
Chen, X. (in press). Growing up in a collectivistic culture: Socialisation and
socio-emotional development in Chinese children. In A.L. Comunian & U.P.
Gielen (Eds.), Human development in cross-cultural perspective. Padua, Italy:
Cedam.
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.
Chen, X., Hastings, P.D., Rubin, K.H., Chen, H., Cen, G., & Stewart, S.L.
(1998). Child-rearing attitudes and behavioural inhibition in Chinese and
Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1–10.
Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000a). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence
and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401–419.
Chen, X., Liu, M., Li, D., Cen, G., Chen, H., & Wang, L. (2000b). Maternal
authoritative and authoritarian attitudes and mother-child interactions and
relationships in urban China. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
22, 119–126.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT , 2002, 26 (6), 481–491
Coenders, G., Satorra, A., & Saris, W.E. (1997). Alternative approaches to
structural modeling of ordinal data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation
Modeling, 4, 261–282.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Eisenberg, N., & Murphy, B. (1997). Parenting and children’s moral
development. In M.H. Bornstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4:
Applied and practical parenting (pp. 227–254). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialisation of shame among
young Chinese children. Ethos, 27, 180–209.
Gorman, J.C. (1998). Parenting attitudes and practices of immigrant Chinese
mothers of adolescents. Family Relations, 47, 73–80.
Gray, M.R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting:
Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
61, 574–586.
Grusec, J.E., & Goodnow, J.J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on
the child’s internalisation of values: A reconceptualisation. Developmental
Psychology , 30, 4–19.
Hart, C.H., DeWolf, M.D., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D.C. (1992). Maternal and
paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground beha-
vioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879–892.
Hart, C.H., Nelson, D.A., Robinson, C.C., Olsen, S.F., & McNeilly-Choque,
M.K. (1998a). 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. (2000a). Russian parenting styles and
family processes: Linkages with subtypes of victimisation and aggression. In
K.A. Kerns, J.M. Contreras, & A.M. Neal-Barnet t (Eds.), Family and peers:
Linking two social worlds (pp. 47–84). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hart, C.H., Newell, L.D., & Olsen, S.F. (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 . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hart, C.H., Yang, C., Nelson, D.A., Jin, S., Bazarskaya, N., & Nelson, L.
(1998b). Peer contact patterns, parenting practices, and preschoolers’ social
competence in China, Russia, and the United States. In P. Slee & K. Rigby
(Eds), Children’s peer relations (pp. 3–30). London: Routledge.
Hart, C.H., Yang, C., Nelson, L.J., Robinson, C.C., Olsen, J.A., Nelson, D.A.,
Porter, C.L., Jin, S., Olsen, S.F. & Wu, P. (2000b). Peer acceptance in early
childhood and subtypes of socially withdrawn behaviour in China, Russia, and
the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 73–81.
Ho, D.Y.F. (1986). Chinese pattern of socialisation: A critical review. In M.H.
Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1–37). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ho, D.Y.F., & Kang, T.K. (1984). Intergenerational comparisons of child-
rearing attitudes and practice in Hong Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20,
1004–1016.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1971). Psychological homeostasis and jen: Conceptual tools for
advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropology, 73, 23–44.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New
York: Guilford Press.
Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence
between mothers’ self-reported and observed child-rearing practices. Child
Development, 60, 56–63.
Komaroff, E. (1997). Effects of simultaneous violations of essential Tau
equivalenc e and uncorrelated error on coefŽcient alpha. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 21, 337–348.
Kriger, S.F., & Kross, W.H. (1972). Child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Jewish,
and Protestant mothers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 205–210.
Lai, A.C, Zhang, Z., & Wang, W. (2000). Maternal child-rearing practices in
Hong Kong and Beijing Chinese families: A comparative study. International
Journal of Psychology, 35, 60–66.
Lau, S., & Yeung, P.P.W. (1996). Understanding Chinese child development:
The role of culture in socialisation. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the Chinese
way: Chinese child and adolescent development (pp. 29–44). Hong Kong: The
Chinese University Press.
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. (1998). Parenting styles and academic
achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157–172.
Lin, C.C., & Fu, V.R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among
Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child
Development, 61, 429–433.
Little, T.D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analysis of cross-
cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research ,
32, 53–76.
Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialisation in the context of family:
Parent-child interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol 4. Socialisation, personality and social development (4th ed., pp.
1–101). New York: John Wiley.
491
McBride-Chang, C., & Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong
Kong: Parenting styles, autonomy, and school achievement. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 159, 421–436.
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, 28, 139–147.
Mize, J., Russell, A., & Pettit, G.S. (1998). Further explorations of family-peer
connections: The role of parenting practices and parenting style in children’s
development of social competence. In P.T. Slee & K. Rigby (Eds.), Children’s
peer relations (pp. 31–44). New York: Routledge.
Nucci, L. (1994). Mothers’ beliefs regarding the personal domain of children.
New Directions for Child Development, 66, 81–97.
Olsen, S.F., Yang, C.M., Hart, C.H., Robinson, C.C., Wu, P., Nelson, D.A.,
Nelson, L.J., Jin, S., & Wo, J. (2002). Maternal psychological control and
preschool children’s behavioural outcomes in China, Russia, and the United
States. In B. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Press.
Pettit, G.S., Clawson, M.A., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (1996). Stability and
change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behaviour, parenting, and
family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267–294.
Rigdon, E.E., & Ferguson, C.E. Jr (1991). The performance of the polychoric
correlation coefŽcient and selected Žtting functions in conŽrmatory factor
analysis with ordinal data. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 491–497.
Robinson, C.C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S.F., & Hart, C.H. (1995). Authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new
measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 818–830.
Robinson, C.C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S.F., & Hart, C.H. (2001). The parenting
styles and dimensions questionnaire. In B.F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, &
G.W., Holden (Eds.). Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. 3.
Instruments and Index (pp. 319–321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rodgers, D.B. (1998). Supporting autonomy in young children. Young Children,
53, 75–80.
Rubin, K.H., & Asendorpf, J.B. (Eds). (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and
shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, K.H., Nelson, L.J., Hastings, P., & Asendorpf, J. (1999). The transaction
between parents’ perceptions of their children’s shyness and their parenting
styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 937–957.
Russell, A., Mize, J., & Bissaker, K. (in press). Parent-child relationships. In P.K.
Smith & C.H. Hart (Eds), Handbook of childhood social development. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefŽcient alpha. Psychological
Assessment, 8, 350–353.
Schoenhals, M. (1993). The paradox of power in the People’s Republic of China
middle school, Armonk, NY: M.E. Shape.
Smetana, J.G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority
during adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299–316.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conict, and harmony in the family relation-
ship. In S.S. Feldman & G.R. Elliott (Eds), At the threshold: The developing
adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B.B. (1992). Ethnic differences in
adolescents’ achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist,
47, 723–729.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1998). Parenting in different cultures: Time to focus.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 698–700.
Super, C.M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptua-
lisation at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral
Development , 9, 545–569.
Tomada, G., & Schneider, B.H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer
acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance
among informants. Developmental Psychology , 33, 601–609.
Triandis, H.C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes.
Cross-Cultural Research, 27, 155–180.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Tseng, W.S., & Wu, D.Y.H. (1985). Introduction: The characteristics of
Chinese culture. In W.S. Tseng and D.Y.H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese cultural and
mental health (pp. 3–13). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Widaman, K.F., & Reise, S.P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of
psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K.J.
Bryant, M. Windle, & S.G. West (Eds), The science of prevention (pp. 281–
324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Wolf, M. (1970). Child training and the Chinese family. In M. Freedman (Ed.),
Family and kinship in Chinese society (pp. 37–62). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Wu, D.Y.H. (1996). Parental control: Psycho-cultural interpretation of Chinese
patterns of socialization. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up in the Chinese way:
Chinese child and adolescent development. Hong Kong: The Chinese University
Press.