Talk:Parenting styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Family and relationships    (defunct)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.

Parental Psychological Control[edit]

This article is a little bit old. It lack of this:

Brian Barber (link was blacklisted!)

Rytkönen, K., Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). Do Parents’ Causal Attributions predict the Accuracy and Bias in Their Children’s Self-Concept of Math Ability? A Longitudinal Study. Educational Psychology, 27 (6), 771-788.

Rytkönen, K., Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2005). Parents' causal attributions concerning their children's school achievement: A longitudinal study . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, (51), 494-522.

Does anybody has time to put in there? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


I think it's too little to introduce only one theory of parenting styles. I propose to add e.g. the theory of Kurt Lewin/Glen Elder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another biased page: Parenting practices. There are lots of them, mostly disconnected. I've also proposed moving the parenting styles from Parenting to here. Rixs (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Kurt Lewin has his own page but not about parenting. Glen Elder co-wrote the book Handbook of parenting: theory and research for practice. And Handbook of Parenting: Practical issues in parenting, Volume 5 I haven't found many good sources on parenting yet. Do you have more? It'd be nice to have some authoritative ones before listing the fashionable and crusading parenting styles. Rixs (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC). See "Reflection-enhancing Parenting" in Sigel, Irving E.; McGillicuddy-De Lisi,, Ann V.; Goodnow, Jacqueline J. Parental belief systems: the psychological consequences for children. ISBN 0805806520. 
I think this page should primarily focus on the different theories and models, with a fairly short description of each, followed by a list of more specific Wikipedia pages, examples or related topics. There is already a wealth of material on Wikipedia that has not been linked together effectively. So I'd imagine this page becoming a series of half a dozen headings, each with a couple of paragraphs, followed by a table or list with the other page and a one-sentence summary of that concept. Concepts that are represented in several theories would be described more clearly in the first reference, and might only have their title in later ones. The theories should be presented in order of how well accepted they are. Having said all this, I do not have a clear set of models yet, and it'll be no small task to gather them. Rixs (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you have a plan, so go ahead and start moving things around. Don't worry about fixing everything at once. Not sure about sorting by how well accepted they are since I'm not sure how well that can be quantified, but you're welcome to try that. I would expect things might change once more information gets added, but don't let that slow you down. One thing I noticed was that Baumrind's theory could provide the boundaries for just about all other styles (From authoritarian to permissive, with most everything else a variation of authoritative). I'll do what I can to help, and apologize in advance if I put something in the wrong place. Ikzing (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, will do when I get the time (hopefully next few days). I was wondering how many of the techniques would appear in several of the theories, and so a matrix might help to decode them (but such tables are usually annoying to read). Anyway, I will have a shot at it. Thanks for your support, Ikzing. Template:Parenting is a helpful way to structure some of this thinking, before hacking this page. Rixs (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having trouble finding authorities on conflicting theories of parenting, but there are lots of practical styles and techniques. I now think it might be better to lay off the theory a bit, and discuss the individuals styles more (which is also more consistent with the title of this article). Theory can be mentioned within those when relevant. Some more references:

(Mostly Rixs (Rixs (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Rudolf Dreikurs had a major theory regarding how to deal with childrens' misbehavior and wrote several books. Other than a couple professional theories, I think most theories come in the thousands from parents and advice columnists. Ikzing (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the chapter we should be writing: Bornstein, Marc H. (2006). "Parenting Science and Practice". In Renninger, K. Ann; Sigel, Irving E. Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume 4: Child Psychology in Practice. John Wiley and Sons. p. 893. ISBN 0-471-27287-6. 

I've just copied the material about Baumrind's styles to Parenting style/Baurimund's four styles so that we can edit this without fear. There is valuable material in there, but it needs to be edited a lot. Sorry about the spelling mistakes! Rixs (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if anyone is serious about fixing this page up, they should first read "Parenting style as context: An integrative model" by Darling and Steinberg. I would be suprised if there is any other literature (after 1993) cited more frequently. Stxera (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


This article seems very POV, unencyclopedic, and a commercial for authoritative parenting. I don't oppose the concept of the article, just the way it's written. - (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The passage "Authoritarian parents expect much of their child but do not explain the rules at all, unlike the Authoritative parent" certainly seems very biased. Liamoliver (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

POV-check: I added the warning. This article does seem to be against non-NPOV. Authoritative seems to have positive information, while the others have negative information. Limasbravo (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The page on Parenting has even more bias. I've started a discussion there. Rixs (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean up & Referencing[edit]

I'm sure that some people reading this wouldn't understand the hard English that was on this page, therefore I have changed some words around, but they essentially mean the same. I have also referenced most of the page, except "outcome". Mapletip 13:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hard" English ?? - (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Request a link[edit]

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good parenting and discipline resource.

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The discipline page of this site includes articles containing extensive research and worthwhile advice on various forms of child discipline within the family and the classroom. Useful articles suggest ways to discipline a child, including forms of child discipline and safe measures for parents to take to control their children. Teamme 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

The permissive parenting section really needs some work and citations —Preceding unsigned comment added by DatDoo (talkcontribs) 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's mostly BS to make it sound like it's parenting that doesn't do anything but let a kid do what they want. Great caricature, wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims of article[edit]

Authoritarian parenting was the most popular until the 1960s. The article claims that children raised in by authoritarian parents grow up to have mental illnesses and hate their parents. Yet, most children who grew up before the 1960's still became normal adults. Permissive parenting was the most popular in the 1970's, but people who grew up during that generation don't seem negatively affected either. To me, the whole article sounds like an advertisement for authoritative parenting.

Parenting isn't a one-size fits all type of thing. Some children will prefer an authoritarian style of parenting while others will prefer a more permissive style. According to one source, "Some experts in the field have posited that authoritarian parents are best suited for rambunctious and “wild” children – children who really need the rules and standards to be clearly outlined and enforced in order to behave properly, and that permissive parents are best suited for children that are shy, timid, soft-spoken, and more responsible, mature, and sensible than their peers."

All children have different needs so there's no inherently "right" or "wrong" style of parenting per se.

For most situations, I believe a mixture of the two styles is the best idea. Whereas authoritarian parenting is similar to a dictatorship (strict, many rules) and permissive parenting is similar to an anarchy (little or no rules), a libertarian-democratic approach to parenting still has rules, but these rules should be subject to open discussion. Children should be free to develop their own opinions by weighing the pros and cons of a situation. Children should be allowed to have a say in matters but they shouldn't have all the say. Even in a married relationship between two adults, there are rules and neither party gets to do whatever they want.

Of course, this is my own personal belief so it shouldn't be in the article.

Our society swings back and forth between authoritarian and permissive parenting. This article would look very different to today if it was written in the 1930's or the 1970's. But in order to maintain a neutral POV, Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a medium for people to popularize the latest "trends". That's the job of parenting magazines. Rather, it should take a neutral, scientific perspective that takes into account the differences between each parenting style and their appropriateness in our modern world.

- Dr. P. Edwards, Professor of Sociology at Massey University. (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This article appears to be based on the work of one person, and is no doubt biased. It should include mention of more styles/methods, but more importantly should account for historical shifts because there is no single right way of parenting. If someone can help identify some sources related to the points you make above, your note would make a much better article than what we currently have. Ikzing (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm studying for my exams on family psychology. Authoritative parenting is still viewed as best practice in my 2011 textbook. On the matter of societal swings, they may have happened in the past but it's no guarantee they will happen again. We now apply the scientific method on social matters. (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Abusive Parenting[edit]

Also, what about abusive parenting. I grew up in an abusive household. So it definately stands as a parenting style. At 9:00 PM, my father would turn off the circuit breaker to my room and demand that I go to bed. He would demand that Internet access be limited to an hour per day, even when I turned 18, but was still in High School. He disapproved of dating, or any signal that i was sexually attracted to women. He always kept saying "your school work comes first". He hated that I wanted to be on the computer all the time. I finally found a way out, and moved in with a girlfriend who helped me get on my feet and develop my own opinions and et cetera. One might want to classify that as authoritarian, but I think Authoritarian is an understatement. One time i told my dad to go Fuck off, and he took his fist to me. That is abusing. I was exercising my RIGHT to free speech, and his response was to resort to illegal assult and battery. This type of parenting style definately needs to be documented, if not only to incite an uprising in the children who are being abused to come forward and say so —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:43, 17 September 2008

Consider revision, daddy issues do not qualify one to be an un-cited source on parenting styles on Wikipedia.

From - "parenting style is meant to describe normal variations in parenting. In other words, the parenting style typology Baumrind developed should not be understood to include deviant parenting, such as might be observed in abusive or neglectful homes." - This article needs to add similiar wording, which i or someone else can do later... Concerns raised above might go into the Child abuse article. Petersam (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Added Petersam (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

language and tone[edit]

hi, is it possible to clean up the tone a bit . the way the descriptions and examples are presented point the reader towards only one of the parenting styles as being "acceptible". It comes across as very judgemntal. more emphasis should probably be given on a more culturally nural and balanced article . a history of parenting style acceptability would also be helpful for the reader to understand why perticular styles have a tendency to be applied in perticular cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


I think there's scope for upgrading the Wikipedia articles on Play, which relates marginally to this. I've been reading about risk aversion and forest kindergartens. I mention it here partly as a note-to-self, and partly to welcome comments on how the topics might be brought together. Rixs (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Play and risk aversion would be great on the Childhood page, so I've begun to add them. Risk aversion could be mentioned under the 'Overparenting' style, as it comes partly from the parent in the form of overprotection, but also partly from society in the form of over-the-top safety regulations. Forest kindergartens, Steiner school/Waldorf school, homeopathy, and other nature-based methods could be mentioned as part of a new area on Nature/Natural parenting. But nature parenting probably isn't a style (as defined by Baumrind) but more of a practice in that it could be a feature of any of the styles. Hope this rambling will be of some help! - Ikzing (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for parenting[edit]

I think that parenting styles are very much affected by a parent's reasons for having children which, in this day and age, is a choice. These might include:

  • A retirement policy; someone to take care of me.
  • A toy, something to cuddle.
  • A workforce to clean my house and carry on my job.
  • A showcase of what good genes I have, and how good a teacher I am.
  • An act of creation in worship to God.
  • A convention to follow without detailed reasoning.
  • A hobby project for developing my skills and occupying my time.
  • An accident, while enjoying sex.

These sound a bit callous, but can perhaps be worked into a more productive story.

I've also discovered Brian Sutton-Smith, a play theorist, and wrote a bit about toys in Slow parenting#Toys. --- Rixs (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

False article[edit]

This is not about the Parent-Style cult! This is a lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody suggested it was. I'll delete that comment unless there's a meaningful discussion there. -- Rixs (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother[edit]

I think the passage about the book „Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother“ should be at maximum one sentence and not a hole passage. She's not a professional in terms of education and the attention to her books seems to be only a current wave. Stündle (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Origins of Baumrind parenting styles categories in work on the Authoritarian Personality[edit]

Baumrind's work on parenting styles had its origins in work by Adorno and others on the Authoritarian Personality, which was in its original form considered part of the origins of prejudice. The connection here is that Baumrind continued to pathologize authoritarian behavior, as seen in parenting. As a result,she failed to note positive values contained in authoritarian and indulgent parenting styles, and her work became advocacy for the authoritative style. She also failed to consider other child outcomes, other than independence and school or occupational achievement, which might be considered goals of responsible parenting. Such goals might include instilling a sense of personal responsibility for others or a selfless devotion to the family (in the case of the authoritarian style), or a free expression of creative and emotional energies (in the case of the indulgent style). Thus, while Baumrind's catgories are useful descriptors, they are limited by the value-laden nature of her study of child outcomes. BuddingFeminist (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Narcissistic parent[edit]

We've removed this:

Narcissistic parenting
Parents are driven by their own needs, their children are an extension of their own identity, use their children to live out their dreams

as being indistinct from the others, but I think that we want a link to Narcissistic parent in there somewhere. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. Good idea to have a link. I put it in the See also section. Lova Falk talk 06:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Structural mess[edit]

The way the sections are organised to explain the different parenting styles is a mess. I might make a start trying to straighten it out. --Penbat (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for neglectful section cleanup[edit]

The paragraph that begins with "Children whose parents are neglectful..." is kind of a mess, with incomplete sentences and incomprehensible fragments. Could someone who is more familiar with this topic than I am clean it up a bit and make it make more sense? Thanks! AilinaHavalii (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

plagiarism ?[edit]

Dear all, I have found two pages on the internet with content similar to the wikipedia current article or an earlier version : and Could a more experienced wikipedian check who has copied who ? Cathrotterdam (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of these sites are known mirrors and both clearly credit Wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant photo caption?[edit]

Of what possible relevance can a photo captioned "Mother carrying an infant child" be to this article? There might as well be a picture of a pram. (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)