Saigeetha
Jambunathan, Ph.D.
Associate
Professor
Please direct all correspondence to:
Dr. Saigeetha Jambunathan
Room 329
Department of Early Childhood Education
Email: sjambun@yahoo.com
Phone: 201 200 2114
FAX 201 200 3567
The purpose of the present study is
to examine the relationship between parenting attitudes of Asian Indian mothers
living in the
The purpose
of the present study is to examine the relationship between parenting attitudes
of Asian Indian mothers living in the coexistence
with grandparents, parents, and children living
together) of living. This
joint family system has been and is a major influence in the socialization
process of the children (Roopnarine & Hossain, 1992). Despite changes in the family structure due
to modernization and western influence the roles of each member of the family
remains the same. The Asian Indian
mother is the primary caregiver and nurturer of children. The father is
viewed as being the bread winner, dominant, stern, and obeyed with fear (Kakar,
1978; Ross, 1967).
According to the Asian Indian way of
life, childhood is considered to be a period without any worry or stress. The Hindu philosophy is of the belief that
during early childhood, the child’s every needs and indulgence have to be met
and this is supposed to affect the child’s relationship with his/her parents
(Kakar, 1978; Rao, Mc Hale, & Pearson, 2003). Asian Indian parents follow an authoritarian
pattern of parenting. [Since
we mentioned the grandparents above in the definition of a patriarchal, joint
family, where do they come in here?] Asian Indian parents also lay
a great deal of emphasis in their parenting practices on familial bonds,
dependence on and loyalty to the family, obedience, religious beliefs, and achievement
(Kakar, 1978). More recent studies also
stress that Asian Indian parents place a high value on academic achievement and
family interdependence, discourage autonomy, emphasize the importance of
extended family, and and
respect and obedience of elders (Dasgupta, 1989; Helwig &
Helwig, 1980; Rao, McCale, & Pearson, 2003; Wakil, Siddique& Wakil,
1981). Asian Indian parents also prepare
children from their earliest years for their eventual adult roles,
in which males traditionally stay with their parents and take care of the
entire family, while females support their spouses, and care
for the household and children (Roland, 1988; Roopnarine & Hossain,
1992). With modernization and western
influence, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Asian Indian parents
to balance the traditional views and modern influences in their parenting
practices
Given the
diversity of the Asian Indian sub-continent, it becomes difficult to make
overarching generalizations about parenting practices because of religious
beliefs, age and gender of the child.
Also, each state and religion in parent internalize their cultural
values and norms, while at the same time enabling parents them
to choose a method of raising children which matches their needs
and resources in a new majority society.
Similarly,
Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel (1990) have proposed three adaptive
strategies that most immigrant families adhere to in order to fit into the
majority society:
The adaptive strategies are:
family “extendedness”
and role flexibility, biculturalism, and instruction in ancestral
worldviews. Family extendedness and role
flexibility is the support system network which might include family and
friends who are there in time of need to help families solve problems.
Biculturalism is the capability of a person to function effectively in two or
more culturally different situations.
Ancestral worldviews are the traditional values of culture and family
taught by the parents to their children. This is passed on from one generation to
another. Immigrant parents incorporate
varying degrees of these adaptive strategies in their parenting practices
(Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990).
The other
variable involved in this study is the perception of self-competence. Self-competence has been defined by Harter
(1983) as the “feeling of confidence in achieving certain tasks”. Rogers (1950) and Coopersmith (1967) propose that self-competence is the
cumulation of one’s evaluations of performances across various tasks. In other words, it is the sum of one’s
feeling of confidence of achieving success in various areas. On the other hand, Harter (1983) and Bandura
(1988) argue that the perception of self-competence is the confidence about
one’s performance in different specific and separate areas. This approach to the study of self-competence
highlights important evaluative judgments about the self in the various areas
of development.
Harter
(1983) proposed four dimensions to describe the perception of self-competence
in young children, (a) cognitive competence- is the sense of confidence in
achieving cognitive tasks, (b) physical competence- is the sense of confidence
in achieving physical tasks, (c) peer acceptance-the perception of being liked
and accepted by peers, and (d) maternal acceptance-the perception of being
liked by the mother (Harter, 1983).
Research
has indicated that it is vital to promote positive self-competence at an
earlier age which in turn will result in positive perception of self-competence
at later ages. Early research has
indicated that there is a correlation between self-concept and social competence,
and adjustment and success in school (Habbard & Coie, 1994; Mc Adoo, 1985;
Parker & Asher, 1985; Rosenberg, 1979).
Also researchers have noted that children with positive self-concepts
seemed to have higher peer and social acceptance (Bradley & Newhouse, 1975;
Downs, 1988).
The
unique nature of perception of self-competence lends itself to beign influenced
by several factors including age, cognitive competence, developmentally
appropriate practices, and parenting attitudes (e.g., Broughton, 1978;
Gottschalk, 1993; Harter, & Pike, 1984; Jambunathan, Burts, & Pierce,
1999; Jambunathan & Hurlbut, 2003; Warash,
& Markstrom, 2001)). Given
the plethora of issues related to self-competence is there is more work to be
done in this area. The focus of most of
the existent research has been done with older children and children with
special needs. In addition, most of the
studies concerning the perception of self-competence among children has been
conducted with children from western cultures.
This is sort of paradoxical because researchers agree that children’s
development is influenced by cultural norms and values (Rubin, 1990). There has
been a lack of adequate research investigating the perception of
self-competence among children from other cultures and the influence of
cultural constructs on their perception of self-competence. Cross-cultural
research about the various aspects of child development increases our
understanding of the psychology of children and families from other ethnic
groups.
The
psychology and behavior of each ethnic group varies from one another. Primary variations are as a result of the way
each group socializes its children.
Behaviors that are considered to be appropriate and positive in one
culture may be viewed as being inappropriate and negative in other
cultures. Research (e.g.,
Asian
Indians’ perceptions of appropriate child behavior vary from that of the
westerners, because of cultural differences and the importance given to certain
values and characteristics in children.
An example of this is the quality of taking initiative to becoming
independent and assertive. Research has
indicated that the Asians Indians strongly encourage their children to be
reticent, dependent, not to display emotions, and to exhibit self-restraint
(Kakar, 1978). These behaviors are
viewed by European Americans to be appropriate in promoting peer and social
acceptance.
However,
the expectations of Asian Indian children’s behavior changes with increase in
age. When the children are infants they
are perceived to be relatively incapable of meeting their needs and are not
responsible for their behavior, and parents provide for the infants and
toddlers (Kakar, 1978, Rao et al, 2003).
The Asian Indian parents don’t expect their children to be responsible
for their own actions during this period of development and there is no
consequence for their behavior. In fact,
they still strongly encourage dependency on the primary caregiver. However, Asian Indian parents have high
expectations for the academic achievement of the children (Khatri, 1975; Rao,
McHale, & Pearson, 2003).
As
the Asian Indian children grow older, children are often expected to fulfill
adult roles, like taking care of the younger siblings (Kakar, 1978). As a rule of thumb, Asian Indian children of
all ages are prohibited from being disobedient, aggressive, and they are
expected to comply with each family’s rules and societal rules and roles
(Kakar, 1978). Asian Indian children are
usually complimented and positively reinforced for behaviors such as completing
chores, academic achievement, and exhibiting self-control. However, parents do not publicly display
their affection for their children. The
Asian Indian children from an early age are under tremendous pressure to keep
up the “family name and honor.” Any
behavior that would bring down the family name and honor usually has severe
consequences (Kakar, 1978). The above
information holds true for Asian Indians residing in
Twenty
eight Asian Indian mothers and their preschool aged children living in the
Invitation
to participate was sent out via several preschools in the local community. Consent forms were attached to the
letters. The consenting parents returned
the envelope to the director of the centers.
The parents filled out the parenting survey at their convenience at
their homes and returned it to the researchers in a self addressed envelope
provided by the researchers. The
children were tested in the centers at the child’s and teacher’s convenience at
their child care centers.
Instruments
The
parenting attitudes of the mothers were measured using the Adolescent-Adult
Parenting Inventory (AAPI, Bavolek, 1984).
This is a 32-item paper and pencil assessment of parenting and child
rearing practices. The AAPI has four
subscales which are (a) Reversing Parent-Child Family Roles, (b) Lack of
Empathic Awareness on Children's Needs, (c) Inappropriate Developmental
Expectations of Children, and (d) Strong Parental Beliefs in the Use of Corporal
Punishment.
The first subscale (reversing
parent-child family roles--8 items) measures the parents’ desire to use
children to satisfy their own needs (e.g., “Children should be the main source
of comfort and care for their parents”).
The second subscale (lack of empathic awareness of children’s needs--8
items) measures the ability of the parents in identifying and empathizing with
the needs of their children (e.g., “Children who are given too much love by
their parents often grow up to be stubborn and spoiled”). The developmental expectations subscale (6
items) measures whether the parents are realistic in their developmental
expectations of their children (e.g., “Parents should expect their children to
feed themselves by twelve months of age”).
Finally, the corporal punishment subscale (10 items)
measures the parental belief in the use of
corporal punishment in promoting the development of stronger character and
moral values in their children (e.g., “Children should pay the price for
misbehaving”). This instrument used a
Likert-type of scoring with the scale ranging from –2 to +2. Low scores indicate more appropriate
parenting attitudes and high scores indicate less appropriate parenting
attitudes, as defined
by the cultural norms of the scale. [This
is a crucial sentence and needs a bit of qualifying. Up to this point we have
not mentioned anything about values. We’ve been speaking of cultural
differences previously and here we move into judgment on the appropriateness of
those differences. This is where I think we need to do a little tinkering.
While we say that the research data base needs to be extended beyond European
Americans, we are still using European American standards as the cultural
universal in making assessments of the parenting styles of non-European
Americans.]. The scale has an internal reliability of
0.70-0.86, . with an internal
consistencies as follows: developmental expectations=.70, empathy=.75, corporal
punishment=.81, role reversal=.82, and the test retest reliability of the
inventory indicated an appropriate level of stability over a week’s period
(.76) (Bavolek, 1990).
The
participating preschoolers' perceived self-competence was measured using the
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance (Harter &
Pike, 1984). The scale consists of 4
subscales, each composed of 6 items. The
subscales are: (a) cognitive competence, (b) physical competence, (c) peer
acceptance, and (d) maternal acceptance.
The questions are presented in a "structured alternative
format," in which each child is presented with descriptions of two
different "kinds of children “(e.g., a child who is shown to be more
competent and a child who is not so competent).
The child is first asked to point to which of the two depicted children
is most like him/her (e.g., "This girl can hop on one foot" versus
"This girl has trouble hopping on one foot"). The child is then asked whether this is only
“sort of true” or “really true” by pointing to each of two circles beneath the
picture (e.g., “Are you really good at hopping on one foot” pointing to a large
circle versus “Are you not too good on hopping on one foot?” pointing to a
small circle. Each item is scored on a
ordinal-type scale ranging from 4 (highest level of perceived self-competence)
to 1 (lowest level of perceived self-competence). A mean score is calculated for each of the
subscales. The reliability of the
subscales ranges from .50 to .85; the reliability of the total scale inclusive
of all 24 items is .85 (Harter & Pike, 1984).
The mean
and standard deviations for each of the subscales from the AAPI and the
pictorial scale are presented in Table 1.
Correlation of the parenting attitudes subscales and the perception of
self-competence subscales indicated that there were significant correlation
between cognitive competence and inappropriate expectations (r=.45, p<.05),
corporal punishment (r=.46, p<.05), and role reversal
(r=.59, p <.01). Role reversal
was also significantly correlated with peer acceptance (r=.46, p<.05). There was no significant correlation between
any of the other subscales.
The results of this study with Asian Indian population seems to be
in line with previous research which had indicated that having appropriate
parenting attitudes will facilitate the development of positive perception of
self-competence of children. The
correlation between inappropriate expectations, corporal punishment, role
reversal and cognitive-competence among the Asian Indian children could be
attributed to the values their parents place on cognitive skills. The Asian Indian children are under
tremendous pressure to do well academically and to improve cognitively. The Asian Indian parents focus more on
educating their children academically and helping them to develop cognitively
and religiously (Kakar, 1978). In the
Asian Indian society in India there is a tremendous pressure for children to
pursue professional degrees (e.g., Engineering or medical degrees). Given the tremendous increase in population
and fewer colleges granting these degrees, parents tend to start preparing
their children to perform well in order to secure admission into these
colleges.
The
relationship between Asian Indian children’s perception of peer acceptance and
role reversal of their mothers is a reflection of the traditional socialization
patterns of Asian Indian parents. These
parents usually emphasize dependence on family and obedience to authority
figures (Khatri, 1975) . The Asian Indian parents encourage their children to
be dependent on them for a prolonged period of time and do not encourage
independent peer interaction and autonomous behavior. Similarly if the mothers viewed friendships
as being important influential factors then they provided the opportunities for
their children to develop friendships.
The
results of this study are limited in scope because of the limited sample size,
however more such research needs to be done with a larger sample and maybe even
look at gender differences in the perception of self competence among Asian
Indian preschoolers. This information
will be very valuable in educating those professional working with ethnic
minority groups.
.
References
Balagopal, P. 1988 Social
networks and Asian Indian families. In
C. Jacobs & D.D. Bowles (Eds.), Ethnicity and race: Critical concepts in
social work (pp 18-33). Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Bandura, A.
L. (1988). Conclusion: Refelctions on
nonability determinants of competence. In J.
Kolligian & R. Sternberg
(Eds.). Integrative processes and
socialization: Early to middle childhood.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bavolek,
S.J. (1984). Handbook of the AAPI: Adult Adolescent
Parenting Inventory. Park City, UT:
Family Resources Inc.
Bradley, F.O., and Newhouse,
R.C. (1975). Sociometric choice and self-perceptions of
upper elementary schools children. Psychology
in Schools, 12, 219-222.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979).
The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Broughton, J. (1978).
Beyond formal operations- theoretical thought in adolescence. Teacher’s College Record, 79(1), 87-97
Coopersmith,
S. (1967). The antecedents of the self-system. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Dasgupta, S.S., (1989). On the trail of an uncertain dream: Indian
immigrant experiences in America.
New York: AMS.
Downs, A.C. (1989). The social biological constructs of social
competency. In T.P. Gullota, G.R. Adams., & R. Montemayor (Eds.) “Developing social competency in adolescence. Advances in Adolescent Development, v3”. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Gottschalk, S. (1993). Self-concept differentiation: it’s link to
linguistic ability, general intelligence, and wellbeing. Paper presented at the 60th
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans,
LA, March.
Habbard, J.A., & Coie, J.D.
(1994). Emotional correlates of
social competence in children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 1-20.
Harrison, A.O., Wilson, M.N., Pine, C.J., Chan, S.Q., &
Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority
children. Child Development, 61,
347-362.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspective on the
self-system. In M. Hetherington
(Ed.). Handbook of child psychology:
Social and personality development. Volume 4. NY: Wiley.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984).
The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for
young children. Child Development, 55,
1969-1982.
Helwig,
A.W., & Helwig, U.M. (1980). An immigrant success story: East Indians
in America. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Jambunathan,
S., Burts, D.C., & Pierce, S. (1999).
Developmentally Appropriate Practices as Predictors of self-competence
among preschoolers. Journal of Research
in Childhood Education, 13(2), 167-174.
Jambunathan,
S., & Hurlbut, N.L. (2003). Effects of parenting attitudes and gender on
the perception of self-competence among preschoolers. Journal of Early Education and Review,
-----------
Kakar, S. (1978). The inner-worlds: A psycho-analytic study
of childhood and society in India.
New Delhi, India; Oxford University.
Khatri, A.A. (1975). The adaptive extended family in India
today. The Journal of Marriage and
Family, (---), 633-643.
Kurian, G., & Ghosh, R.
(1983). Child rearing in
transition in Indian immigrant families in Canada. In G. Kurian & Srivastava (Eds.), Overseas
Indians: A study in adapatation (pp.
128-140). New Delhi: Vikas.
McAdoo,
H.P. (1985). Racial attitude and self-concept of young
black children over time. In McAdoo T.L.
(Ed.). Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments,
London: Sage, 213-242.
Ogbu,
J.U. (1980). Origins of human competence: a
cultural-ecological perspective. Child
Development, 52, 413-429.
Parker, J., Asher, S.R. (1985).
Peer acceptance and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted children
"at risk"? Psychological
Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Rao, N., McHale, J.P. & Pearson,
E. (2003). Links between socialization goals and childrearing
practices in Chinese and Indian mothers.
Infant and Child Development, 12, 475-492.
Rogers, C.R. (1950).
The significance of the self-regarding attitudes and perceptions. In M.L. Reynert (ed.), Feelings and
emotions: The Mooseheart Symposium.
New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Roland,
A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan. New Jersey: Princeton University.
Rosenberg, M. (1979).
Conceiving the self. New
York: Basic.
Roopnarine,
J. L., and Hossain, Z. (1992). “Parent-child interactions in urban
Indian families in New Delhi: Are they changing?” Pp. 1-16 in J. L. Roopnarine,
& Carter, D. B. (eds.), Annual
Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology,
5, 1-17. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Ross, A. D.
(1967). “The Hindu Family in the
Urban Setting.” Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rubin,
K.H. (1990). Introduction: Peer relationship and social
skills in childhood- and international perspective. Human Development, 33, 221-224.
Ryback, D., Sanders, A.L., Lorentz,
J., & Koenstenblatt, M. (1980). Child
rearing practices reported by students in six cultures, The Journal
of Social Psychology, 110, 153-162.
Segal,
U. (1991, April). Cultural variables in Asian Indian
families. Families in society: Journal of contemporary human services,
233-242.
Wakil, S.P., Siddique, C.M., & Wakil, F.A. (1981).
Between two cultures: A study of socialization of children of
immigrants. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 43, 929-940.
Table 1
Descriptive
statistics of variables used in the study
|
Variable |
Mean |
S.D |
|
Cognitive
competence |
3.77 |
.49 |
|
Physical
competence |
2.91 |
.64 |
|
Peer
acceptance |
2.87 |
.79 |
|
Maternal
acceptance |
3.52 |
.54 |
|
Role
reversal |
-3.9 |
7.52 |
|
Lack of
empathic awareness of children’s needs |
-5.4 |
7.2 |
|
Inappropriate
expectations |
-4.2 |
4.1 |
|
Beliefs
on corporal punishment |
-6.8 |
9 |