Diana Baumrind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Diana Baumrind
Diana Blumberg Baumrind, 1965.png
Diana Blumberg Baumrind circa 1965.
Born (1927-08-23) August 23, 1927 (age 86)
New York City, USA
Residence  USA
Nationality  American
Fields Developmental psychologist
Institutions Cowell Memorial Hospital
University of California, Berkeley
U. S. Public Health Service
Alma mater Hunter College
University of California, Berkeley
Doctoral advisor Hubert Coffey
Known for Parenting styles
Influences Theodor Adorno
Else Frenkel-Brunswik
Daniel J. Levinson
Nevit Sanford
Egon Brunswik
David Krech
Richard S. Crutchfield

Diana Blumberg Baumrind (born August 23, 1927) is a clinical and developmental psychologist known for her research on parenting styles and for her critique of deception in psychological research.

Life[edit]

Baumrind was born into a Jewish community in New York City, the first of two daughters of Hyman and Mollie Blumberg. She completed her B.A. in Psychology and Philosophy at Hunter College in 1948, and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.[1] Her doctoral dissertation was entitled "Some personality and situational determinants of behavior in a discussion group".[2]

After being awarded her doctorate she served as a staff psychologist at Cowell Memorial Hospital in Berkeley. She was also director of two U. S. Public Health Service projects and a consultant on a California state project. From 1958-1960 she also had a private practice in Berkeley.[3]

She is a developmental psychologist at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley.[4] She is known for her research on parenting styles[5][6] and for her critique of deception in psychological research, especially Stanley Milgram's controversial experiment.[7][8][9]

Her parenting styles were based on two aspects of parenting that are found to be extremely important. The first was "Parental responsiveness", which refers to the degree the parent responds to the child's needs. The second was "Parental demandingness" which is the extent to which the parent expects more mature and responsible behavior from a child. Using these two dimensions, she recognizes three different parenting styles:

  • Authoritarian ("Too Hard"): the authoritarian parenting style is characterized by high demandingness with low responsiveness. The authoritarian parent is rigid, harsh, and demanding. Abusive parents usually fall in this category (although Baumrind is careful to emphasize that NOT all authoritarian parents are abusive).
  • Permissive ("Too Soft"): this parenting style is characterized by low demandingness with high responsiveness. The permissive parent is overly responsive to the child's demands, seldom enforcing consistent rules. The "spoiled" child often has permissive parents.
  • Authoritative ("Just Right"): this parenting style is characterized by high demandingness with huge responsiveness. The authoritative parent is firm but not rigid, willing to make an exception when the situation warrants. The authoritative parent is responsive to the child's needs but not indulgent. Baumrind makes it clear that she favors the authoritative style.

Baumrind has studied the effects of corporal punishment on children, and has concluded that mild spanking, in the context of an authoritative (NOT authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status.[10] She observes that previous studies demonstrating a correlation between corporal punishment and bad outcomes failed to control for variables such as socioeconomic status. Low-income families are more likely to employ corporal punishment compared with affluent families. Children from low-income neighborhoods are more likely to commit violent crimes compared with children from affluent neighborhoods. But when appropriate controls are made for family income and other independent variables, Baumrind believes that mild corporal punishment per se does not increase the likelihood of bad outcomes.[11] This assertion has in turn attracted criticism and counter-points from other researchers in the same publication, for example: Whether harmful or not, there is still no consistent evidence of beneficial effects.[12]

Her scientific influences include Theodor Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, Nevit Sanford, Egon Brunswik, David Krech, Richard S. Crutchfield[1]

See also[edit]

  • Parenting style - Maccoby and Martin expanded Baumrind's three parenting styles to four: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Vande Kemp, Hendrika (2000). "Baumrind, Diana Blumberg". Parenthood in America: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 80–84. ISBN 978-1-57607-213-4. OCLC 45129297. 
  2. ^ Diana Baumrind (1955). "Some personality and situational determinants of behavior in a discussion group". Doctoral Dissertations Accepted by American Universities 22 (New York City: H. W. Wilson Company). p. 133. ISSN 1046-9222. OCLC 1771396. 
  3. ^ "The Authors". Children 12 (6): 210. December 1965. ISSN 0009-4064. OCLC 2097225. 
  4. ^ Baumrind CV
  5. ^ Diana Baumrind & Parenting Styles
  6. ^ Wade, Dorothy (2005-10-15). "There's a brat in my kitchen". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 2008-04-07. 
  7. ^ Baumrind D (1964). "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience"". American Psychologist 19 (6): 421–423. doi:10.1037/h0040128. 
  8. ^ Baumrind D (1971). "Principles of Ethical Conduct in the Treatment of Subjects: Reaction to the Draft Report of the Committee on Ethical Standards in Psychological Research". American Psychologist 26 (10): 887–896. doi:10.1037/h0032145. 
  9. ^ Baumrind D (February 1985). "Research using intentional deception. Ethical issues revisited". Am Psychol 40 (2): 165–74. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.165. PMID 3985477. 
  10. ^ Goode, Erica (2001-08-25). "Findings Give Some Support To Advocates of Spanking". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-07. 
  11. ^ Baumrind D, Larzelere RE, Cowan PA (July 2002). "Ordinary physical punishment: is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002)". Psychol Bull 128 (4): 580–9. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.580. PMID 12081082. 
  12. ^ Gershoff, Elizabeth (2002). "Corporal Punishment, Physical Abuse, and the Burden of Proof: Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002)". Psychological Bulletin 128 (4): 602–611. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.602. 

Further reading[edit]