THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE IN CHILD - ResearchGate

THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE IN CHILD SUBSTANCE USE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Garima Malik, M.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University 2005

Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Hajime Miyazaki, Adviser Professor Lucia Dunn Professor Raymond Montemayor Professor Patricia Reagan ________________________ Adviser Economics Graduate Program

Copyright by

Garima Malik

2005

ii

ABSTRACT

Strategic interactions between a parent and a child within a family have been deemed

important in predicting the behaviour of the child. The dissertation adopts an inter-

disciplinary approach that uses the methodology of development psychology and the

economics of incentives in order to develop an estimable model of parenting styles on

substance use by children ages 10-14. The dissertation relies on the Baumrind

classification of �authoritative�, �authoritarian�, �permissive� and �disengaged�

parenting types, and constructs parenting styles according to the dimensions of

demandingness and responsiveness. The economics of this dissertation relies on an

underlying economics of intrahousehold bargaining reasoning that interactions between

the parent and the child influence the child�s decision on substance use. The model is

solved based on exogenous parenting style but parenting style could be taken as

�endogenous� as the data rejects the hypothesis of no switching convincingly. The

NLSY-79 Mother-Child dataset is used and in the empirical specification a probit model

is used for the different forms of substance use by the child to estimate the probabilities

of taking substances. Disengaged parents are most likely to have children smoking and

consuming alcohol and authoritative parents are least likely to have children smoking and

consuming alcohol. The dissertation establishes the importance of family background

factors in determining substance use, including parental substance use. Thus the

iii

economic models of household bargaining can be supplemented with variables from the

development psychology literature.

iv

VITA

September 21, 1975��..�� Born � India

August, 1996�� B.A. Economics, Delhi University

August, 1998��M.A. Economics, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University August, 1999��M.A. Economics, The Ohio State University

1998-2004��Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Fields: Economics

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract��. ii

Vita .��.��.. iv

List of Tables��. vii

List of Figures�� ix

Chapters:

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction��.1

2. Literature Review

2.1 Parenting Style/Parent-Adolescent Relations .��2 2.2 Family Economics��..�.7 2.3 Economics Literature on Incentives and Bargaining...��..11

3. Towards an Economic Model of Incentives and Bargaining in the Parent-Child Relationship

3.1 Introduction��.��....15 3.2 Pecuniary or Non-pecuniary aspects��...16 3.3 Altruistic Parents��.�19

3.4 Constrained Nash Bargaining��.��22 3.5 Child�s Incentive Compatibility Constraint��....23 3.6 Empirical Comparative Statics��...25

vi

4. Classification Scheme

4.1 Classification Schemes��27 4.2 Parenting Styles��...28 4.3 Psychological Models��..32

5. Empirical Model

5.1 Introduction��. 36 5.2 Factor Analytic Structural Model��37 5.3 Estimated Probit Model��.. 41 6. Data Description

6.1 Introduction��..44 6.2 NLSY-79 Dataset description and properties��..49 6.3 Description of variables and coding scheme��...54 6.4 Scaling characteristics and cronbach alpha results��..57 6.5 Reliability and internal consistency��.58

7. Results Section 7.1 Results��. 61 7.2 Correlations��.�.68 7.3 Discussion and Interpretation��..69 8. Conclusion 8.1 Conclusion��.. 74 8.2 Policy Recommendations��75 Bibliography��.� 81

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

6.1 Sample Deletion for different groups��. 46

6.2 Variable Definitions��. 47

6.3 Descriptive Statistics�� 48

6.4 T-test for differences in means across samples��. . 49

6.5 Switching parenting styles across different years for the same child��. 54

6.6 Switching parenting styles across different children for the same year�� 54

6.7 Responsiveness subscale for the parenting style inventory��.. 57 6.8 Demandingness subscale for the parenting style inventory��.. 58 7.1 Random Effects OLS model for BPI�� 62

7.2 Random Effects Probit Analysis of Smoking�� 63

7.3 Tobit Model for Smoking Intensity�� 64

7.4 Random Effects Probit Model of Smoking with race interactions�� 65

7.5 Random Effects Probit Model for Alcohol��.. 66

7.6 Tobit Model for Alcohol Intensity�� 66

7.7 Random Effects Probit Model for Alcohol with race interactions�� 67

7.8 Correlations between BPI and Smoking��.� 69

7.9 Correlations between BPI-Externalizing and Smoking��.� 69

8.1 Means and Standard Deviations under parenting styles across gender�� 77

viii

8.2 Cronbach alpha measures of coefficient�� 78

8.3 Means and variances of factor analysis items�� 78

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

4.1 Parenting Styles��. 29

4.2 Ecological Model�� 32

4.3 Theoretical Model of Risk-Taking Propensity�..�� 34

4.4 Schematic Parent-Child Model��.� 35

5.1 Schematic Representation of common factor theory.......................................... 40

8.1 Eigenvalues plot��..��.� 79

8.2 Trends in consumption of smoking and alcohol consumption�� 80

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This dissertation contributes to the economics of family where household decision

making is made as household members bargain among themselves. My research focuses

on the parent-child interactions in the context of household bargaining. In Chapter 2 I

review the literature on parenting style and child substance use critically both from the

economics of incentives and the psychology of parenting styles on child outcomes. In

Chapter 3 I present a basic economic model of interactions between parents and children

from a game-theoretic viewpoint, and draw several predictions about the relationship

between parenting style and child behaviour. In Chapter 4, I discuss and examine the

classification scheme of parenting styles that is used in development psychology. In

Chapter 5, I present the empirical model which I transform into two different econometric

models for testing purposes. One econometric model uses a single equation probit

specification and the other model. The results of the probit model indicate that

disengaged parenting styles are most likely to lead to increases in the probability of

children taking substances. Authoritative parenting styles leads to the maximum

reductions in the probability of children taking substances. In Chapter 7 I present the

results of the probit models. Therefore both the theoretical and empirical results of this

dissertation demonstrate the potential of the ways in which parenting style can provide a

reasonable and cogent explanation for substance use by young children.

2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

There are three basic strands of literature which motivated this research: (1) parenting

styles/parent-adolescent relations; (2) family economics including health

economics/health capital; and (3) economics of incentives, bargaining and behavioral

economics. The discussion below will identify important contributions already available

in each of these areas and will indicate where the present research expands and

contributes to the existing knowledge.

2.1 Parenting Style/Parent-Adolescent Relations

The first of the three major strands comes from development psychology. In this

section, I briefly discuss the methodology and existing contributions form that literature.

More details of classifications, concepts, and methodology from development psychology

are presented in later chapters.

Baumrind classification

This strain of research developed from the seminal paper by Baumrind (1966). In this

work, Baumrind predicts that authoritative parents are more likely to be able to protect

their children from substance use. A general observation from many researchers is that

3

children thrive developmentally when the family environment is characterized by warmth

and psychological autonomy.

Baumrind�s early research created the parenting typologies of �authoritative�,

�authoritarian�, �permissive� and �disengaged� parents along the two dimensions of

demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness denotes the expectation of parents

for mature behaviour from their adolescent children by setting and consistently enforcing

reasonable rules and standards for their behaviour. Responsiveness refers to parental

warmth and demonstration of physical affection towards the child. Authoritarian parents

attempt to shape, control and evaluate the behaviour and attitudes of children based on

absolute sets of standards, respect for authority and obedience. Authoritarian parents are

more likely to use harsher forms of punishment and are less responsive to the children.

Authoritative parents encourage verbal give and take, explain the reasons behind

demands and discipline, and expect the child to be independent and self-directing. Thus

authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. Permissive parents are more

likely to give way to the child�s impulses, desires and actions. Permissive parents are less

demanding and more responsive and could be indulgent while disengaged parents are

neither demanding nor responsive and could be termed as neglectful parents.

This dissertation draws on the four-fold parenting style classification given in

Baumrind (1966) and subsequent studies by Baumrind (1991). It explores the two factors

of demandingness and responsiveness. The parenting styles are on the right- hand side as

4

explanatory variables in the empirical framework as well as in the theoretical model

where the parents� utility functions are classified according to the different parenting

styles.

Ecological Factors

There have been studies in development psychology where parenting styles are

classified along the dimensions of support, attachment and learning. These

classifications were not as appropriate for this research as those dimensions would

require �parenting inventories� which are not available here.

This dissertation adapts Bronfrenbrenner�s (1979) model of the ecology of human

development to the parent-child association where the child is at the centre of the system

and is surrounded by the microsystem, which includes parenting factors as well as

neighbourhood factors, which constitute the mesosystem. The ecological paradigm began

with the Lewin model (i.e., Lewin�s Behaviour = f (Person, Environment)) where humans

are active and shape the environments in which they live. In the context of adolescent

psychological development, there are individual factors such as the child�s own

propensity to consume substances, as well as the microsystem and the mesosystem,

which influence the child�s behaviour. Thus the adolescent growing up in the household

has behaviour which consists of the core components of personality and peripheral

components that are constantly adapting to the environment.

5

Maccoby (1990) distinguished parents along the dimensions of permissiveness and

warmth. Maccoby (1980) explored the aspects of parental control stressing the

classifications such as consistent enforcement of demands and rules, high expectations

and training, restrictive parenting, arbitrary power assertion or authoritarian parenting,

open communication patterns and parental warmth and affection.

Steinberg (1982) is the next study in this line of literature which focuses on the

dimensions of acceptance/involvement, strictness/supervision, psychology autonomy

granting, parental involvement in schooling, parental encouragement to succeed, school

performance and school engagement. There are studies by Baumrind (1977) and

Maccoby and Martin (1983) which analyzed parental behaviour through dimensions such

as parental warmth, acceptance, involvement, parental control or strictness. Lamberg,

Mounts, Steinberg and Dornbusch (1991) discus similar dimensions of parenting

practices. The importance of the family in connection to the child�s social and cognitive

development has been highlighted in child development and family studies literature. All

such familial variables that can affect child outcomes � for example parental dispositions,

marital and sibling influences, and the sociocultural context in which the family operates

� are all considered within the interactions between the parent and the child. The parent-

child interaction is characterized by two major parenting dimensions: nurturance (warmth

and support) and control (supervision and discipline). Inadequate parenting characterized

by lack of affection and high levels of criticism and hostility, inconsistent discipline and

supervision, general lack of involvement, provides the foundation for the development of

an aggressive, antisocial behaviour pattern. In addition to parental drinking, there is a

broad range of family influences associated with alcohol problems and externalizing

6

behaviours such as antisocial behaviour and aggression. The family background of

alcohol and other drug users is mostly characterized by marital instability, lack of

support, poor discipline and family conflict.

Techniques and Methodology of Scaling

Scaling techniques were used to generate the different Cronbach alpha values to

check for internal consistency. There are an equal number of items under each scale.

Scaling involves the assignment of objects to numbers according to a rule. Scaling is

different from a response scale, where scales assign numbers according to a common

rule. Scaling is used in this context to see how well these questions �hang together� and

in some instances to score all the responses to generate a single number that represents

the overall construct. Thus a scale refers to a set of items and each item on a scale has a

scale value.

There are three major types of uni-dimensional scaling methods. Scale construction

involves the creation of empirical measures for theoretical constructs and these measures

mostly consist of several items. The process of measurement involves the assignment of

numbers to empirical realizations of the variables of interest. In Thurstone and Guttman

scales, each item represents degrees of the variables of interest, such as the difficulty of

an item. In Likert and Semantic Differential Scales, each item represents degrees of the

variables of interest in a somewhat different way. The differences between the scales

affect the computation of reliability. In the construction of the different types of scales,

many items have been used. The concept of directiveness has been an important element

7

used in the construction of scales (see studies by Courts (1966), Bracken, Brunch, Keith

& Keith (2000), Murphy & Davidshofer (2001) and Schneeweiss & Mathes (1995)).

Scaling has been used as a method to recognize the patterns of the inter-item

correlations which exist among different items within the potential variables of interest.

There are theoretical justifications which underly scale construction. Exploratory factor

analysis was used to isolate three factors for use in this dissertation: (1) acceptance/

involvement (2) strictness/supervision; and (3) psychological autonomy.

2.2 Family Economics

Intergenerational Human Capital Models

The most relevant study to date is by Akabayashi (1998). It uses the NLSY-Child

dataset linking the parent and child in an inter-generational human capital framework

which takes parental incentives as endogenous to examine their influence on cognitive

and behavioural indicators. The NLSY-Child dataset data on children collected through

self-administered questionnaires, as well as extensive information on parental substance

and family background variables.

A longitudinal study by Brook (1990) focused on parenting variables as the major

psychosocial influence on a child�s development of alcohol use and abuse patterns.

Brooke found that the level of mutual warmth, support, and control within the parent-

adolescent relationship predicts the significance of the risk of adolescent drug use.

Adolescent personality characteristics such as sensation-seeking, rebelliousness, and

tolerance for deviance were robust predictors for adolescent alcohol use. A positive

relationship between the parent and adolescent served as a protective factor offsetting the

8

risk of alcohol use associated with peer alcohol use. Studies of the individual effects have

included the role of the parent role modeling and alcohol expectancies in determining the

behaviour of children of alcoholics. Dyadic effects come from the interactions of two

family members, focusing on the parents� marital relationship and the child�s relationship

with the siblings.

Household Economics

Hao, Hotz and Jin (2003) present a game-theoretic model involving parents and

daughters. They further test the model on different family formation structures. In

families which typically have multiple siblings, daughter and family-specific fixed effects

are used. The impact of families on juvenile substance use is examined in Mach (2001),

who looks at the impact of families on juvenile substance use using the NLSY97 dataset1.

She finds that family formation can be an important factor in explaining juvenile crime.

This approach uses county crime rates to look at the influence of parents as well as

siblings on the consumption of substances by youth

Among the various dyads, the parent-child relationship has received the most

attention in the study of alcohol-specific family influences. These dyads are divided

along the lines of father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, and mother-daughter

relationships. With regard to parenting effects on alcohol use, strong associations were

found between the child�s conduct disorder/adolescent delinquency/adult antisocial

behaviour and adult alcoholism. Almost 20% of alcoholics studied met the criteria for

1 The National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) is one of the biannual rounds of the survey which individuals born between 1957 and 1964. More detail is given in Chapter 6.

9

antisocial personality disorder, which is characterized by a disregard for and violation of

the rights of others. The associations between antisocial personality disorder and

alcoholism indicate that a parent-child interaction that promotes aggressive, antisocial

behaviour plays a role in the alcoholism of both children of alcoholics and of non-

alcoholics.

The family has been recognized as the primary support system and socializing

institution for children; the better the family operates, the more likely it is that a child will

develop well. Fundamental to positive family dynamics are the relationships that parents

develop with their children. Parental support is significantly related to child and

adolescent development and also to other behaviours which are less deviant than the ones

focused on here.

The study of the relationship among adolescents� reckless behaviours, employment,

and opportunities for risk-taking and parenting styles is not new to psychology or

economics. However, a full understanding of adolescence behavour requires

consideration of the rapidly changing individual in a developmental context.

There is an extensive literature in development psychology and behavioural economics

that seeks to explain key background variables impacting children�s cognitive and

behavioural development.2 These variables include children�s and parent�s background

factors, poverty status, parent�s cognitive support and other key parenting measures. It is

essential to understand what support or protective measures can help children overcome

these risk factors. Mothers� cognitive ability, represented by a mother�s low intelligence

2 See references at end.

10

quotient, is shown to have detrimental effects on her children. It has also been shown that

lower academic levels result in adverse outcomes such as poor parenting.

There are links between poverty, economic resources, and child outcomes. For

children who face persistent poverty, there are substantial developmental deficits.

Low-income families may not be able to afford adequate food, shelter and other

material goods or to provide a warm and stimulating home environment. These absent

conditions are the ones which if present would foster healthy cognitive and social

development of children. Thus economic deprivation has been linked to both

externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems among children and adolescents.3

However, as explained in the NLSY79 Handbook, the effects of low socioeconomic

status are more clear for externalizing problems than internalizing problems. Economic

resources account for half of the difference in children�s outcomes for single versus two-

parent families, thus providing a powerful explanation for family structure effects on

academic achievement and cognitive outcomes. However, even when income is

controlled, children from disrupted families demonstrate greater behaviour problems than

children from intact families, indicating that differences in economic resources do not

fully account for the effect of family structure on child outcomes.

Health Economics/Health Capital

In the case of alcohol and smoking, linear regression models can be used to measure

the amount of alcohol and smoking consumption. When we focus on a decision to smoke

3 Internalizing behaviour includes depression and anxiety. Externalizing behaviour includes hyperactivity and antisocial actions.

11

or not or to consume alcohol or not, however, the appropriate model is of a discrete

nature with a probabilistic outcome being regressed on all the explanatory variables.

There are studies in the Health Economics literature by Hill (1987), Seo (1998), Yin

(2000), Lane, Gerstein, Huang & Wright (1997) which deal with alcohol and smoking as

continuous or discrete variables.

The literature also has an extensive section on the ethnic and ecological perspectives

on socialization in Family Theory. Our purpose here is to present empirical

generalizations and theoretical propositions about relationships between characteristics of

children and parent variables of support. Thus we will evaluate the generalizations and

propositions in social psychology.

2.3 Economics Literature on Incentives and Bargaining

Inter-generational human capital models and models of household bargaining have

been used to examine the effects of parental behaviour. The economic view of

psychological interactions between parents and children considers the effects of family

background as basic human capital with inputs chosen by both parents and children

interactively. Human capital theory has contributed to explaining the level, pattern and

interpersonal distribution of life cycle earnings.

The issue of endogeneity in these kinds of transmissions of family endowments is

important to the extent that this enables a deeper understanding of the theory of

intergenerational mobility. Intergenerational human capital formation is distinct from

�self� investment in human capital.

12

The existing intergenerational human capital theories can be applied to the early

formation of human capital models since children in earlier stages of development must

be different from adults and fully controlled investment in children is not possible by

parents. There are only certain kinds of behaviours which are considered appropriate in

these situations in the process called �socialization�. Personality is a set of characteristics

which determine how individuals respond to experiences and how they get along with

others and themselves. A competent child is characterized as possessing independent,

self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative, and self-assertive, high linguistic, analytic and

logical abilities.

Psychology is concerned with the structure and components of family influence on

several dimensions of children�s development- cognitive, emotional and psychological.

They are exploring the relationship among the adolescents� reckless behaviours (i.e.

alcohol use and non-normative behaviour), parenting practices, adolescents� employment,

and adolescents� opportunities for risk-taking.

The propensity event theory examines the opportunity variables which can mediate the

effects of other explanatory variables on the adolescent�s participate in risky behaviours.

This model of risk-taking behaviour is adapted from Irwin & Millstein (1986) and the

definition of risk-taking inherent in psychosocial development is that risk-taking is a

result of an interaction between the biopsychosocial processes of adolescence and the

environment.

The development psychology literature accepts that some risk-taking is necessary in

the natural developmental process, but extreme forms of risk-taking have severe

consequences. The underlying strand of thinking indicates that young children do not

13

have an adequate understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions and

therefore may take actions that are potentially destructive in nature.

An economic study by Weinberg (2000) examines the impact of parental income on

the incentives offered to children where the more punitive measures are being offered by

low-income households such as grounding while measures such as taking away the

child�s allowance are being offered by higher income households. This is investigated

through an incentive model of parental actions. These economic studies use rational

choice models and the utilitarian framework to model these family choices. This

approach focuses on the �Black-box� and derives reasonable equilibrium results and

testable predictions for the model. However one potential gap within these approaches is

it does not adequately capture the role of parenting styles in these choice theories and

thus does not use the psychological theories to emphasize the association between parents

and children.

Economic Psychology and Behavioural Economics

The literature in the area of economic psychology and behavioural economics deals

with self-control and addiction behaviours. This includes the part on rationality of

decision making processes and the cognitive influences.

There is an extensive literature which examines risky behaviours in the context of the

societal influences. The game theoretic models essentially model rational, socially

14

interdependent decision making processes with psychological explanations as described

in details in Brandstatter and Guth (1994).

There is an extensive literature on the psychology of risk-taking find that it is

positively correlated with behavioural aberrations such as creative activity, courage and

resiliency. Lipsitt and Mitnick (1991) examines different self-regulatory behaviours and

the causal factors of such behaviours.

15

CHAPTER 3:

TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC MODEL OF INCENTIVES AND BARGAINING IN

THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I discuss how the economic model implied in this research differs

from the standard principal-agency models that economists use. To economize on

terminology and usage according to the standard principal-agent model, in this chapter I

shall sometimes use a one parent vs. one child framework. To interpret the parent-child

relationship, it may appear to be straightforward that the parent is the principal and the

child is the agent. This is correct in a sense that a family, and the parent-child

relationship in the present context, can be regarded as an implicit long term contractual

relation between them. And, as in the economics of all principal-agency relations, the

parent has instruments and authority in attempting to induce a desirable behaviour from a

child. I shall illustrate how the underlying economic model of this dissertation

nevertheless differs from the usual principal-agency framework at least in two aspects:

the parent�s objective function and tacit use of contractual instruments under the parent�s

disposal.

16

3.2 Pecuniary or Nonpecuniary Aspects

The standard story is that the principle can enforce a carrot (reward) and stick

(penalty) rule on the agent to induce a desirable outcome, a good behavior in the present

context.

In this regard, the nature of the reward and penalty in the parent-child relation is not

necessarily pecuniary. The standard principal-agency model essentially says that the

agent be rewarded with a bonus for a �good� outcome and penalized with a severe

payment reduction for a �bad� outcome, in such a way to maintain a sufficiently great

gap between the bonus and penalty in order to discourage the agent from taking a wrong

action that leads to a bad outcome. Such a bonus-penalty scheme is generally understood

to be a pecuniary measure. There can be a practical problem with the pecuniary measure

for parents in dealing with children, however. For example, it is arguable that

conditioning a child for monetary bonus for a good outcome can lead to a failure to foster

ethical or moral elements in shaping and maintaining a good life style in the long run, and

thus that concerned parents might not wish to use monetary means on a routine basis.

Also, the amount of bonus and penalty might practically have a ceiling and a floor

especially in the context of an intra-family relation and thus a range in which pecuniary

measure can be used may be quite limited.

In the parent-child context, the parent can give bonus allowances to reward the child�s

good outcome, such as a high school grade. But, there are many ways other than

17

monetary allowance that the parent can give to the child, even if a pecuniary action is

extended to include purchasable entities such as gifts. For example, it may take the form

of nonmarketable gift, such as a home made gift, an extra vacation day, and other means

showing the parent�s affection. Sometimes, verbal compliments can mean more than a

monetary allowance, and of course a show of affection.

A simple pecuniary penalty is a reduction in the child�s weekly allowance or in

monetizable gift. Instead of pecuniary means, parents have recourse to a wide range of

nonpecuniary means to discipline and reward children. An example of a nonpecuniary

penalty can be an extra household duty, or taking away household privileges, although a

classic textbook example may be �scolding� or �spanking�. These nonpecuniary

instruments of interaction with children are important in the context of the family

relationship that is not inherently monetary. If one accepts a thesis that a significant

content of a typical parent-child relationship has nonpecuniary contents, one realizes that

the implicit social contract between parents and children typically has elements that are

not necessarily monetizable or market mediated. A mechanism to enforce implicit

contractual terms must necessarily then depend on some form on internal nonpecuniary

means. A parent can take actions that directly affect a child�s utility, and in practice the

history of these nonpecuniary actions taken by parents will possibly come to play

important elements in the formation of the parent-child relationship.

Technically, in terms of the principal-agency modeling, the availability of

nonpecuniary means relaxes the so-called bankruptcy constraint and enable the principal

a wider range of Draconian penalties. Nevertheless, in the parent-child relationship, the

parent may not wish to take a nonpecuniary Draconian measure for the same reason that

18

pecuniary Draconian measure may not be credible. In addition, the parents� objective in

practice may not be just their own utility but may also take into account the child�s

utility.

Demanding parent perhaps use sharper demarcations in the use of rewards and

penalties in dealing with a child. But, it is not a priori clear whether demandingness per

se should translate into nonpecuniary or pecuniary measure of the reward-penalty

scheme. In terms of responsiveness, one may be tempted to associate a more responsive

parenting style with nonpecuniary means of reward and penalty. Again, however, it is

perhaps an empirical question to see if this indeed holds up. After all, an authoritative

parent, the parenting type usually considered desirable, can be both responsive and

demanding. It should also be noted that the parent can use the mixture of pecuniary and

nonpecuniary means in the implicit principal-agency relation with the child. For

example, the parent may use monetary bonus to reward, but make recourse to

nonpecuniary means for a penalty. It is worthy to note in this regard that Weinberg

(2000) reports the choice of pecuniary or nonpecuniary means depends on the parents�

income classes. More specifically, he reports that more affluent parents tend to rely more

on pecuniary rewards and penalty than less affluent parents. The ready availability of

both pecuniary and nonpecuniary means should be reckoned within any principal-agency

applications towards the analysis of a parent-child relationship. In other words, an

implicit social contract between a parent and a child contains both pecuniary and

nonpecuniary aspects as terms of contractual enforcement and agreement.

19

3.3 Altruistic Parents

It has been known both from economics and from development psychology4 that

parents have altruistic motives towards their children and behave accordingly5.

Economists� favorite subject is parents� altruistic bequest motive as they arise in

intertemporal macro economics and public finance. But, there are many altruistic

objectives and actions that occur daily between parents and children. For children who

are taking substances parental altruism could take several forms. An example of parental

altruism is �discussing the consequences of using and choosing not to use tobacco,

alcohol and other drugs�. Another example is �expose the child to media influences on

tobacco, alcohol and other drugs�. These are the ways a parent could protect the child

from substance use and show empathy with the child�s actions.

I take a standard economic approach to model the parent�s altruistic motives in terms

of the parent�s utility. Namely, the parent�s utility depends on the child�s utility6. This is

to say that the parent is happier when the child is happier, all other things equal. Letting

the parent�s utility be U, and the child�s utility V, I can specify in the most general

fashion the parent�s utility as U(• , V(• )) where • signifies a vector of consumption

4 Batson (1987, 1991), Rushton (1980), Hoffman (1976), Krebs (1975), Dovidio & Penner (2001), Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio & Piliavin (1995) and Monroe (1996) are references from development psychology. Abel (1998), Cardia & Michel (2004), Kurz (1997), Bernheim & Stark (1988) and Andreoni (1989) are references from economics. 5 Altruism refers to genuinely motivated helping actions that may or may not involve significant risk to self. Such altruism might be a manifestation of a sense of self-identity and expectation associated with social context and super-ego or of an innate empathic capacity that reacts immediately and instinctively to the other when imperiled.

6 The specification adopted here is not the only way that economists may postulate the parental altruism. An alternative specification of the parental altruism is to postulate that the child�s outcome directly enters the parent�s utility function. Such a specification will also occur, if the child directly provides utility to the parent�s utility.

20

bundles and outcomes that may affect utility valuations. An altruistic parent will have its

U monotone increasing in the child�s utility V. I specify further that the parent�s utility is

of a generalized Cobb-Douglas type, namely U(• , V(• )) = Uα(• ) V1- α(• ) where 0 ≤ α

≤ 1. Further, assuming that I can normalize the utility scale to be positive numbers, I

take the logarithmic transform to the form,

α log U(•) + (1 � α) log V(•).

In the logarithmic specification, it is transparent that a lower α corresponds to a more

altruistic parents.

Of the four stereotypes of parenting, authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and

disengaged, the authoritative parent type is by definition most prominently altruistic.

But, in terms of technical definition of altruism that I use in this section, it is not a priori

decidable which type should or should not be more altruistic. It is tempting to say that

the disengaged type perhaps places the lowest weight on the child�s utility. But, the

disengaged parent can paradoxically claim that the child are left on its own as a result of

giving a high weight to the child�s utility. Namely, if the child is happy doing what it

chooses to do, then that is all that the parent should care, and the child does not need

neither reward nor penalty7 in the case of a disengaged parent.

On the other hand, the permissive parent can also claim that the child is given all the

weight in the parent�s logarithmic utility. After all the permissive parents might be

7 Technically, this line of a disengaged parents is summed up by saying that the parents completely succumb to the child�s incentives. See the discussion on the child�s incentive compatibility later in this section.

21

letting the child to maximize its own utility not the parent�s own utility. The

authoritarian types may be consistent with either an altruistic type or non altruistic type.

Thus, except possibly the authoritative type, the technical definition of altruism in terms

of the coefficient α does not in itself immediately help us to classify the parent types.

The specification of the parent�s logarithmic utility is meant to provide an intellectual

framework that describes how the economic environment of the parent-child relationship

does not fit the standard principal-agent model. Which type of parenting style is more

altruistic is an empirical question, which I hope to illustrate in my data analysis. .

Authoritative parenting, which balances clear, high parental demands with emotional

responsiveness and recognition of child autonomy, is one of the most consistent family

predictors of competence from early childhood through adolescence. Authoritarian

parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and

status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind,

1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with

clearly stated rules.8

8 To remind, authoritative parenting, which balances clear, high parental demands with emotional responsiveness and recognition of child autonomy, is one of the most consistent family predictors of competence from early childhood through adolescence. Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules.

22

3.4 Constrained Nash Bargaining

The form of the altruistic parent�s utility function, α log U(• ) + (1 � α) log V(• ),

enables us to interpret it as a product of a classic Nash bargaining program9. If the parent

and the child bargain according to the Nash�s axioms, their bargaining takes place as if

they are maximizing the weighted product of their utilities10. If their relative bargaining

power is α and 1 � α respectively11, then the maximand of the bargaining process is

Uα(• ) V1- α(• ). Since the bargaining process is neutral to monotone transform of their

utility functions, it is functionally equivalent to maximizing its logarithmic form α log

U(• ) + (1 � α) log V(• ). The upshot is that the postulated altruistic form tacitly

incorporates a bargaining process with asymmetric bargaining power between the parent

and the child.

Although the model initially starts out with the parent as the principal and the child as

the agent, the outcome of the model, once the parent is assumed altruistic, turns into an

implicit bargaining model between the parent and the child. To the extent that a parent-

child relation is regarded as an implicit social contract, the altruistic parent behaves as if

the contract is bargained between the parent and the child.

The implied bargaining model is a constrained Nash bargaining model in the sense

that bargaining instruments must be chosen from restricted sets available to the parent

9 Nash (1953) 10 Strictly speaking, the Nash product that the bargaining process maximizes is not α log U(• ) + (1 � α) log V(• ) but α log [U(• ) � U*] + (1 � α) log [V(• ) � V*] where [U(• ) � U*] > 0 and [V(• ) � V*] > 0 follow from the nondegnerate bargaining set and each bargainer�s participation constraint. (U*, V*) is called a threat point of the bargaining problem; its role is same as each party�s reservation utility level. 11 This is an extension of the original Nash bargaining model in which α = ½ is assumed. For an axiomatic extension of the Nash�s original symmetric treatment, see Kalai (1977) and its n-person application, see Svejnar (1982).

23

and child including not only the standard participation constraints for the parent and the

child, but also child�s incentive compatibility constraint. In other words, the Nash

bargaining outcome reached in this paradigm is constrained efficient, subject to the

child�s incentive compatibility constraint.

3.5 Child�s Incentive Compatibility Constraint

Summing up the discussion in this chapter, my basic framework is to specify that the

parent and child behave as if they maximizes α log U(• ) + (1 � α) log V(• ) subject to the

parent�s participation constraint U(• ) ≥ U*, the child�s participation constraint, V(• ) ≥

V*, and the child�s incentive compatibility constraint, as well as any other technological,

institutional and legal constraints that each party may face. The critical element that

makes this model different from the textbook case of Nash bargaining is the presence of

the child�s incentive compatibility constraint. And, the child�s incentive compatibility

constraint is what makes the economic aspect of the present investigation a hybrid of the

standard bargaining framework and the standard principal-agent model.

What makes an incentive compatibility constraint important in the principal-agent

model is that the principal can observe the outcome of the agent�s action, but cannot

observe directly the agent�s action. This is because the outcome (y) is a joint

consequence of the state of nature (s) and the agent�s action (x), that is, there is a function

y = f(x, s). If the principal can observe z and s, the principal can invert the function and

infer x accurately. But, if the principal cannot ascertain s, then it is not possible to infer

the agent�s action x from the outcome y. The principal share the common knowledge

with the agent that a better outcome y is more likely if the agent implement a proper x

24

given s. To the extent that the state of nature occurs stochastically, the principal can

only make a statistical inference of the agent�s x given y. In other words, the agent has

a room to shirk in effort to implement a proper x and may still get by. Such

informational asymmetry regarding the agent�s action coupled with unobservable state of

nature occurs generally in a typical real-world contractual environment, and in particular

in the parent-child situation. It is thus relevant for me to comment what aspect of the

parent-child environment is observable or monitorable to the parent.

There are aspects of child actions that are not observable to parents, and thus the

parent cannot base their actions on child�s actions, but only on the observable outcome of

the child. For example, the parent can observe the child�s school grade, but cannot tell

what actions the child took to deserve that school grade. If it is a good grade, was it just

by a good luck even though the child was not putting much effort? If it is a bad grade, is

it because the child did not make effort or the child tried but exogenous events, such as

temporary headache or psychological infirmity might have happened beyond the child�s

control? In either case, the parent does not have an economical way to monitor the

child�s diligence12. In the case of smoking or drinking, the parent can find out whether

the child is smoking or not, but may have a difficult time to discover what caused the

child to smoke. Were there some socio-psychological causes including a pressure from a

wrong peer group? Parents perhaps will have difficulty knowing how hard the child

exerted effort to quit or in what way the child may be making effort to stay away from a

substance use. More generally, the parents know the child�s outcome, say an accident,

12 In this sense, the situation is completely analogous to the management-worker relationship in the agency theory of production. Management observe an output amount, but does not observe the worker�s effort input to produce that output amount, and the output is subject to random production factors.

25

but they cannot tell the extent to which the child exercises self-control and due diligence

to abstain from high-risk behaviours. In this dissertation, I use the term �behaviour� to

mean an observable outcome of the child behaviour, such as a school grade or substance

use. But, the child�s actions or effort remain unobservable to the parent.

3.6 Empirical Comparative Statics

In principle, the economic framework described above implies a comparative statics

on the coefficient α, to trace the effect of the parenting style on the child�s action, and

probabilistic child�s behaviour. But, the comparative static exercise is difficult without a

set of regularity conditions regarding the child�s incentive compatibility constraint and

also without making radically simplifying assumptions on the child�s and parent�s utility

functions13. There are enough richness and thus accompanying comparative static

complications, even if the social contract between the parent and child is enforceable.

With the presence of the child�s incentive compatibility constraint, additional regularity

conditions are needed to deal with the child�s action space. The standard way to treat the

incentive compatibility is to grope for a set of regularity conditions that enables the so-

called first-order approach14. Deriving the qualitative comparative statics of parenting

style is thus difficult, and is not an aim of this dissertation. Instead, by using the data that

enables me to identify parenting styles exogenously, I run regressions to see how

13 The standard economics of principal and agency postulates that the principal is risk neutral and the agent risk averse. But, in the case of the parent-child relationship, the child can often assume a more aggressive risk-taking posture than the parent. Or, the parents are often more conservative in risk taking than children. 14 See Jewitt (1988), Pavoni & Arphad (2004) and Rogerson (1985) for the standard as well as the latest treatment of the incentive compatibility constraints in the principal-agency model.

26

different parenting styles affect the likelihood of child�s substance use. Given the nature

of the data set, I examine the likelihood of the child to engage in the substance use as

well as the likelihood of the extent of the substance use. The former is same as asking

whether a child under a given parenting style smokes or not, for example, without asking

how often or how much smoking the child does. The latter, instead, can ask whether a

child already smoking tends to smoke more or less, under a different parenting style. The

central contribution of this dissertation is in the examination whether there is an

empirically discernible relationship between the parenting style and substance use. In

other words, I try to conduct an empirical qualitative response econometrics of the

parent-child relationship. I hope that such empirical findings would give an impetus to

further sharpen the model specifications that may yield a qualitative comparative statics

within the context of the constraint bargaining model described in this section.

27

CHAPTER 4: CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

4.1 Classification schemes

The aim of this chapter is to develop a classification scheme of parenting styles.

These kinds of classification schemes are used in social sciences where lists are used and

then given such �scientific labels�15 as classifications. A scientific classification first

defines the domain and then specifies mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories

within that domain. The validity of a classification is assessed by its utility through one or

more of the stated purposes. Thus in classifying we are attempting to mark the perimeter

of a scientific territory. Though such a classification is different from a taxonomy, which

is based on a deep theory that explains the domain of concern.

A classification system should essentially have some properties to be considered a

valid classification system: A classification system should be exhaustive where the same

domain should include all the possible categories that can be possibly encountered.

Additionally the classification system should have mutually exclusive dimensions and

this is especially relevant when the categories are very similar in nature. Thus there

should be no fuzzy categories or overlapping in dimensions. Next each time the

classification system is used it should give the same result if the same individual is being

classified. A classification system should not give different results or term the person

15 Values in action (VIA) Classifications of Strengths, Peterson and Seligman (draft, January 4, 2003), Values in Action Institute 2002.

28

differently on different occasions. Also a classification system should be a representation

of the �real world� that is, it should accurately capture the truth.

In the case of parenting styles there are twin domains of demandingness and

responsiveness. These two domains comprise of different categories which could

reasonably be classified under a common domain. In order to check whether these

categories are consistent as part of a common factor, a factor analysis is performed in

later chapters on the two dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. In the case of

the demanding factor all those questions which are rated as high on the punitive scale are

classified under one domain. In the case of responsiveness those questions which can be

listed as higher on the scales of warmth are classified under a common category. These

questions are listed in the table below. The original classification used in the development

psychology literature given by Baumrind (1991) can be listed as follows with the given

categories and the standard classification. One of the drawbacks with the Baumrind

categories is that the data does not always support the cause and effect of these

relationships.

4.2 Parenting Styles (Baumrind Classification)

In the Baumrind classification a major goal of parenting is to encourage and foster a

high level of interdependence. There also needs to be a balance between independence

and connectedness which should be maintained by parents. There are two broad

dimensions of parenting: demandingness -- making maturity demands and being willing

to supervise and responsiveness -- showing sensitivity and support.

29

Demandingness

Responsiveness Low High

Low Disengaged Authoritarian

High Permissive Authoritative

Figure 4.1 Parenting Styles Dimensions

The parenting styles emerge along the two dimensions and they can also be viewed

along with the child outcomes for the different parenting styles. In the case of

Authoritative Parenting the parents are warm but firm, they set standards consistent with

needs and capabilities, place high value on development of autonomy, assume ultimate

responsibility for child�s behaviour and discuss and negotiate with the child. The children

are lively, happy, self-confident, less gender-typed, task persistent, have social maturity,

high self-esteem, internalized moral standards and superior academic achievement. One

explanation forwarded for this parenting style being effective is that the control that is

fair is more likely to be complied with, parents also provide models of caring concern and

confidence and their demands are reasonable.

In the case of Authoritarian Parenting the parents place the highest value on

obedience and conformity, favor punitive and absolute disciplinary measures, believe that

kids should accept without questioning, place importance on restricting autonomy and the

children are anxious, withdrawn, unhappy, react with hostility when frustrated in peer

30

situations and the boys have high rates of anger and defiance, the girls are dependent,

lack in exploration, retreat from challenge.

In the case of Permissive Parenting the parents are overly tolerant, are very accepting,

place high value on personal freedom for children, see themselves as resources that child

can choose to use and the children are less mature, have trouble controlling impulses, are

overly demanding and dependent on adults, have less persistence on tasks, conform to

peers.

In the case of Disengaged Parenting parents mimimize the time and energy devoted to

children, know very little about their children, are overly concerned with the stresses in

own lives don�t converse with their children, don�t consider their opinions and are

considered �parent-centered�. The children in this case have problems with attachment,

cognitive development, play and social and emotional skills and exhibit delinquent

behaviour, also experiment with drugs and alcohol.

The questionnaires used in the Children of NLSY-79 survey are used to elicit

responses from the children themselves through self-reported inventories on substance

use. The parental control questions are extracted from the questionnaires administered to

the parents since those are the questionnaires which collect information on the likelihood

and frequency of parental responses to various child behaviours.16 There are issues

concerning the reliability of these responses and response quality.17 Its also recognized

that this method of data collection is non-experimental in nature and this kind of a

research has different implications as given in Johnson (2001). 16 Attachment and Control in Family and Mentoring Contexts as Determinants of Adolescent Adjustment to College , Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 14, Soucy and Larose. 17 Reliability of Responses in Questionnaire Research with Children, Borgers and Hox.

31

Additionally the survey is longitudinal in nature and the subtype is a panel study since

the same children are being studied successively at various points. There are issues

involved in establishing causality with reference to the dependent variable as we have to

go backwards in time to find the movement of the independent variables that could

explain current differences in the dependent variable.

In the case of the domains of demandingness and responsiveness these categories

given below have been extracted from three questions in the mother supplement

questionnaire. While one question is a parental response to child behaviour another

follow up question is a response to grades and finally there is a question which asks the

frequency of the actions taken in response.

Domain of Demandingness has several sub components such as Grounda which is

grounding the child, Spanka which is spanking the child, Allowa which is taking away

the child�s allowance, Momt which is Mom contacting the teacher about low grades,

Moml which is Mom limiting the child�s non-school activities, Momp which is Mom

punishing the child, Spankt which is the number of times spanked the child, groundt

which is number of times grounded the child, Allowt which is number of times took away

the child�s allowance.

Domain of Responsiveness has several sub �components such as Talka which is

Talking to the child, Momt which is Mom Talking to the child, Moms which is Mom

helping child with schoolwork, Mome which is Mom keeping a closer eye on child�s

activities, Momk which is Mom lecturing the child for low grades, Affect which is the

number of times Mom showed physical affection towards the child.

32

4.3 Psychological Models

There are different psychological models in the literature. The ecological model and

the risk-taking propensity model are reviewed briefly here but only the ecological model

will be tested empirically. In the dissertation Bronfrenbrenner�s (1979) Model of the

Ecology of Human Development is adapted to the parent-child association where the

child is the centre of the system and is surrounded by the Microsystem, which includes

parenting factors, and the neighbourhood factors, which constitute the Mesosystem. The

ecological paradigm began with Lewin�s Behaviour = f (Person, Environment) model

where humans are active and shape the environments in which they live. In the context of

adolescent psychological development there are individual factors such as the child�s

own propensity to consume substances and then the microsystem and then the

mesosystem and these are the factors influencing the child�s behaviour. Thus the

adolescent while growing up in the household has a core behaviour and then a peripheral

component which is constantly adapting to the environment.

Figure 4.2 Ecological Paradigm

Neighbourhood factors (Mesosystem)

Parenting factors (Microsystem)

Child factors (Individual)

33

This model of risk-taking behaviour is adapted from Irwin & Millstein (1986) and the

definition of risk-taking inherent in psychosocial development is that risk-taking is a

result of an interaction between the biopsychosocial processes of adolescence and the

environment. The development psychology literature does indicate that some risk-taking

is necessary in the natural developmental process, but extreme forms of risk-taking have

severe consequences. The underlying strand of thinking indicates that young children do

not have an adequate understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions and

therefore may take actions that are potentially destructive in nature.

34

Figure 4.3 Theoretical Model of Risk-Taking Propensity

SELF-PERCEPTION OF CHILD BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM INDEX Self-Esteem Self-Reliance

PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

RISK-PERCEPTION

RISK-TAKING BEHAVIOUR

35

Figure 4.4: Schematic Representation (PARENT-CHILD MODEL)

PARENTAL STYLES AUTHORITATIVE

AUTHORITARIAN PERMISSIVE DISENGAGED

INDIVIDUAL CHILD FACTORS FAMILY FACTORS

CHILD

OUTCOMES:

ALCOHOL

CONSUMPTION

SMOKING

CHILD BEHAVIOURAL OUTCOMES

CHILD MEASURES BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEM INDEX

36

CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL MODEL

5.1 Introduction

The empirical model which is being used in this dissertation is a discrete choice

probit model. Such models are effective when qualitative choices are being made. The

goal of this research is to provide more precision and more definitiveness in

understanding the role of parents in the development of children.18 The precision is

increased by testing a conceptual framework that emphasizes the associations between

parenting dimensions and key domains of child functioning. The paths of this framework

were derived from the substantial empirical and theoretical literatures finding links

between parenting and child development. These literatures were interpreted to be

compelling enough to recommend moving towards greater precision in understanding the

associations, and to recommend the hypothesized paths of the model.

Principal component analysis involves a mathematical procedure that transforms a

number of correlated variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables called

principal components. The first principal component accounts for as much of the

remaining variability. The main aim of conducting a principal component analysis is to

discover or reduce the dimensionality of the dataset and to identify new meaningful

underlying variables.

18 Parental Support, Psychological Control and Behavioural Control: Assessing Relevance Across Time, Method and Culture, Barber, Stolz, Olsen and Maugham, Monographs Series of the Society for Research in Child Development.

37

Principal component analysis and factor analysis are two of the most common

methods used to investigate the correlation structure. PCA decomposes the correlation (or

variance-covariance) into eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenvectors which explain the

variation and interrelationship of the variables in the data. Factor analysis also explores

the correlation structure of the data.

The main theme of principal component analysis is to reduce the dimensionality of a

dataset that may contain many highly correlated variables, while retaining as many as

possible of the variations in the data set. This also makes the interpretation of the data

easier.

5.2 Factor Analysis

Two factors emerge in parenting style factor analysis. These factors are

demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness refers to the demands made on the

child by the parent, the expectations for maturity in behaviour, the discipline and

supervision which is provided. Responsiveness refers to the encouragement of

individuality, self-assertion and regulation and being responsiveness to needs and

demands. 19

There are two kinds of factor analysis- exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Exploratory factor analysis is used to explore data to determine the number or the nature

of factors that account for the covariation between variables when the researcher does not

have sufficient evidence to form a hypothesis about the number of factors underlying the

19 Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1) p 56-95 1991, Diana Baumrind.

38

data. Thus, exploratory factor analysis is generally thought of as more of a theory-

generating procedure as opposed to a theory-testing procedure.20

Factor analysis is also involved with questions of validity and in the process of

finding out whether the identified factors are correlated, exploratory factor analysis

answers the question of construct validity and if the scores on the test measure what the

test purports to measure.

The general objective of factor analytic research is to determine the nature of the

underlying factors and develop an understanding of their relationships to the surface

attributes. An important fundamental point about factor analytic research is that its

virtually impossible to achieve this objective in a single study. In the case of the

problems being addressed within much of the research in psychology one of the

preliminary steps involves identifying the domain and population of interest. The domain

is the phenomenon which we are interested and could be defined in very broad or very

narrow terms. In the present case there are twin domains of demandingness and

responsiveness.

Additionally there is the population of interest, and in this case it is the sample of 10-

14 year old children being studied.21 Once the domain and population of interest are

established, the researcher selects from the domain the variables which are to be

measured. These variables are referred to as �surface attributes�, where a surface attribute

is one of the many attributes of people that can be observed and measured. A set of

surface attributes measured in a given study is refered to as a battery of surface attributes.

20 Applied Multivariate statistics for the social sciences, Mahwah, J. Stevens. 21 Exploratory Factor Analysis by Ledyard Tucker and Robert Mac Callum, 1997.

39

Factor analysis provides a set of techniques designed to identify order and structure in

data by providing a meaningful explanation for the observed variation and covariation in

surface attributes. There are also internal attributes where an internal attribute is an

unobservable characteristic of people on which people differ in extent or degree. Internal

attributes cannot be measured directly but the effects are reflected when one obtains

measures on surface attributes and they are referred to as factor or latent variables. We

can further distinguish between two types of internal attributes, one type is a common

factor which is defined as an internal attribute which affects more than one of the surface

attributes in the selected set or battery. The second type of internal attributes is specific

factors, each of which influence only one of the surface attributes in any given battery.

The figure below depicts the relationship between surface attributes and three types of

factors defined above. The figure shows four surface attributes on the right. These are the

various variables being combined under the two domains. On the left are three types of

factors, the two internal attributes are represented as influencing more than one of the

surface attributes.

There are also two common factors which are intercorrelated. Then there are four

specific factors which also represent internal attributes. Each specific factor influences

only a single surface attribute. Then at the end are the measurement factors, arising from

unsystematic events.

40

(Internal attributes) Surface Attributes

Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of common factor theory

41

5.3 Estimated Probit Model

We estimate the following reduced form specification as a probit model for the different

forms of substance use by the child. The likelihood of participating in different forms of

substance use is unobservable to the parent and Pij* is the unobservable variable which is

the child�s latent propensity to smoke (consume alcohol). Therefore we define the

observed variable Pij as:

Pij=1 if Pij*>0

Pij=0 otherwise

Prob (Pij=1) = 1-Φ (-αStylei + Xi′β)

where Φ represents the cumulative normal distribution. X is a vector of: explanatory

variables that includes all child-specific characteristics, mother-specific characteristics

and family background variables. They include mother�s substance use over the lifetime

as well as mother�s substance use during pregnancy.

5.3.1 MODEL 1: (With Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive Parenting Styles as RHS

variables)

We assume there is a four-style world and the styles are mutually exclusive and

exhaustive and they are exogenously determined. Therefore we construct a Dummy for

Authrve where Authrve=1 in the case of Authoritative parenting style and Authrve=0 in

the case of the other parenting styles. And similarly in the case of Authoritarian,

Permissive and Disengaged parenting style. When estimating we run the regression by

excluding one Dummy variable at one time.

42

Prob (Pij=1) = 1-Φ (-αStylei + Xi′β)

where Style i =Authve, Authran, Permve

The HOME questions in the Mother Supplement questionnaire do not directly ask

the mother what action she would take if the child engages in substance abuse. The

question reads as follows �Sometimes children get so angry at their parents that they say

things like �I hate you� or swear in a temper tantrum. Please check which action(s) you

would take if this happened�

Therefore the question in the Mother Supplement only asks what the mother would

do if the child misbehaves or throws a tantrum. There is also a need to control for other

behavioural problems as those could be potential sources of endogeneity so we control

for those problems using the behavioural problem index. The behavioural problem

index22 is based on responses from the mother to 28 questions in the Mother Supplement

which deal with specific behaviours that children age four and over may exhibit in the

previous three months. The standard score used in this paper sums across the subscores

created according to the following domains:(1) antisocial behaviour, (2)

anxiousness/depression,(3) headstrongness, (4) hyperactivity (5) immature, (6)

dependency and (7) peer conflict/social withdrawal. The standard score of BPI is scaled

from 70 to 140 and higher scores represent a greater level of behavioural problems.

This dissertation uses the measure of lifetime substance use i.e. if the child smoked or

drank alcohol in his entire life prior to the time of the interview.

22 Details of the behavioural problem index are given in the NLSY79 Child Handbook.

43

5.3.2 MODEL II: (With demandingness and responsiveness as RHS variables)

Prob (Pij=1) = 1-Φ (-αDemandgi + Responsvi + Xi′β)

An alternative model specification is to assume there is a two-factor world and the

factors are also mutually exclusive and exhaustive and they are exogenously determined.

Therefore we construct a Dummy for Demandingness where Demandingness=1 and

Demandingness=0 in the case of the other parenting styles.

44

CHAPTER 6: DATA DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS

6.1 Sample Construction

The National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) began as a sample of

12,686 individuals born between 1957 and 1964. There are three subsamples, a cross

section sample representative of the population of this birth cohort living in the US as of

the beginning of 1979, oversamples of blacks, Hispanics and economically disadvantaged

whites and a military sample. The NLSY79 surveys use complex sampling i.e. multi-

level clustered sample design.23 Beginning in 1986 information was collected biennially

on the children of the female respondents. The interviews for the NLSY79 surveys have

been conducted annually between 1979 and 1994 and biennially after that. The combined

mother-child (NLSYMC) represents a unique dataset with panel data on both mothers

and their children. The data for this dissertation uses the 1986-1998 waves of the

NLSYMC. The poor white oversample was dropped after 1990 and the military sample

was dropped in 1984. So the data used for this dissertation include the cross section and

the Black and Hispanic oversamples. Since the women in the original sample are close to

the end of their childbearing years, the children in this sample are representative of the

children ever born to women in the 1957 and 1964 who were living in the US at the end

23 The implications of the cluster sample for estimation of race effects is discussed by Eberweing, Olsen and Reagan (2003).

45

of 1978. The sample is representative of each race, ethnicity group, but contains

oversamples of blacks and Hispanic minorities. Since 1986 assessments have been

administered to the children of NLSY79 mothers to measure cognitive ability,

temperament, motor and social development, behaviour problems, perceived competence,

and the quality of their home environment. Therefore to construct the dataset for this

study the data from the mother�s records from the NLSY79 were combined with the child

records in the Child survey conducted since 1986. The combined data helps in exploring

the interrelationships between family and environmental factors, maternal behaviour, and

child and young adult development.

The base sample consisted of the children aged 10-14 who were interviewed between

1986-98. In 1986 there were 294 children, there were 851 children interviewed in 1988,

1,158 interviewed in 1990, 1,700 interviewed in 1992, 1,955 interviewed in 1994, 1,951

interviewed in 1996 and 1,996 interviewed in 1998. There were 10,007 observations on

all the children interviewed in the overall sample (including multiple observations for

each child), of these there were 3499 observations for Black children and 2250

observations were Hispanic and 4258 White. The sample selection criterion are described

in detail in Table 6.1 and in the first selection criterion only those children were selected

aged 10-14 who completed the self-administered questionnaire. This questionnaire was

given to all children aged 10-14 as of the December of the interview years 1994-98 so

this sample deletion deleted all those children who did not complete the questionnaire.

The sample was further narrowed to include those children whose mothers were also

administered the Mother supplement which includes HOME questions and then

subsequent sample deletions to get the final sample for smoking and for alcohol.

46

Numbers of observations and Reasons for deletion from sample

N

Black

Hispanic

Non Black

Non Hispanic

Number of observations on Children Respondents of NLSY79 aged 10-14 interviewed in 1998

10007 3499 2250

4258

After deletion as children did not answer SA questions on substance use

7553 2713 1698 3142

After deletion as children�s residence is not with mother

7441 2640 1662 3139

After deletion as child did not answer SA questions on getting an allowance

4030 1367 930 1733

After deletion as mother reactions to the child questions are not missing

3399 1105 757 1537

After deletion as explanatory variables missing like race, highest grade completed and family income

2237

691 478 1068

After deletion as child did not answer questions on smoking (Smoking sample)

1049 672 466 1053

After deletion as child did not answer questions on alcohol (Alcohol sample)

1069 682 467 1054

Table 6.1 Sample deletion for different groups

47

Descriptive Statistics

Variable

Variable definitions

SMOKE Smoke=1 if child ever smoked in lifetime

ALCOHOL Alcohol=1 if child consumed alcohol in lifetime

AUTHRVE Authrve=1 if the parenting style is Authoritative

AUTHRAN Authran=1 if the parenting style is Authoritarian

DISENGG Disengg=1 if the parenting style is Disengaged

PERMV Permv=1 if the parenting style is Permissive

ALL All=1 if child gets an allowance

CWORK Cwork=1 if child works for pay

CHILDAGE Age of child at time of interview (in years)

BLACK Black=if child is Black

HISPANIC Hispanic=1 if child is Hispanic

MALE Male=1 if child is Male

MOMSMK Momsmk=1 if mother smoked atleast 100 cigarettes in lifetime

MOMSP Momsp=1 if mother smoked during pregnancy

BPI Total standard score scaled from 70-145

Table 6.2 Variable Definitions

48

Variable

Means

SMOKE 0.1296473 (0.3360752)

ALCOHOL 0.1169317 (0.3214893)

AUTHORITATIVE 0.1693171 (0.3752073)

AUTHORITARIAN 0.0608045 (0.2390832)

DISENGAGED 0.4883068 (0.500972)

PERMISSIVE 0.2815716 (0.449976)

ALLOWANCE 0.7970065 (0.4024159)

CWORK 0.4097287 (0.4920138)

CHILDAGE 12.06564 (1.178243)

BLACK 0.2843779 (0.4513288)

HISPANIC 0.202058 (0.4017232)

MALE 0.4976614 (0.5002286)

MOMSMK 0.4480823 (0.49753)

MOMSP 0.2815716 (0.44976)

BPI 107.7109 (13.9016)

# of total observations for smoking

1049

# of total observations for alcohol

1069

Table 6.3 Descriptive Statistics

49

Variables BPI Cwork Childage Allowance

White 107.9737 (13.5534) [-0.1941]

0.4462659 (0.4975576)

[-0.0609]

12.01214 (1.196226) [-1.2161]

0.7751634 (0.355716) [-2.8245]*

Black 107.1713 (13.06311) [0.5374]

0.3148148 (0.4655209)

[3.1875]*

12.10378 (1.147461) [-0.5324]

0.8010757 (0.3988201)

[-1.2161]

Variables Authoritative Authoritarian Disengaged Permissive

Hispanic 0.2105 (0.4083546)

[-1.8377]

0.0455373 (13.5534) [-2.9930]*

0.4735883 (0.4997573)

[-1.7036]

0.3205829 (0.3713161) [5.4348]*

Black 0.1342593 (0.3417226)

[0.8998]

0.0509259 (0.2203572)

[-0.3164]

0.4675926 (0.5001077)

[0.1493]

0.3472222 (0.477198) [-0.7057]

* significance at 5% level

Table 6.4 T-test for difference in means across different racial groups

6.2 NLSY-79 Dataset description and properties

The Home Observation Measurement of the Environment � Short Form (HOME-SF) is

the primary measure of the quality of a child�s home environment included in the

NLSY79 Child survey. The HOME-SF is divided into four parts and the fourth part (Part

D) is for children 10 and over. The HOME-SF is a modification of the HOME inventory,

a unique observational measure of the quality of the cognitive stimulation and emotional

support provided by a child�s family. The HOME-SF is about half as long as the HOME

inventory. The Child Supplement and the Mother Supplement which are administered to

the children are part of the HOME administered questionnaires. In the Child Supplement

there are questions answered by the child on smoking and alcohol consumption.

50

In the Mother Supplement there are questions answered by the mother on the kind of

responses which the mother would take in response to different actions of the child.

The measure used to sum across the different child responses and interpret behaviour

is the Behavioural Problem Index. The Behaviour Problem Index was created to measure

the frequency, range, and type of childhood behaviour problems for children ages 4 and

over, the items being derived from child behaviour scales. The Behaviour Problem total

score is based on responses from the mother to 28 questions in the Mother Supplement.

These mother-report questions ask about specific behaviours that children age four and

above may have exhibited in the previous three months. For the overall Behaviour

Problems scale and the set of six subscales, responses to the individual items are

dichotomized and summed to produce and index for each child. Higher scores represent a

greater level of behaviour problems. Factor analysis was used to determine the six

subscores alluded to above according to the following domains: (1) antisocial behaviour,

(2) anxiousness/depression, (3) headstrongness, (4) hyperactivity, (5) immaturity, (6)

dependency, (7) peer conflict/social withdrawal.

There are two subscales which measure the internalizing or externalizing behaviour.

All of the above scores and subscores are available for all age-eligible children who were

assessed biennially between 1986 and 2000. For all the above except the last three (the

non-dichotomous external, internal and total scores which were not recoded), overall as

well as �same-gender� normed scores created based on the data from the 1981 National

Health Interview Survey.

The average behavioural problem index for the children is 107. This figure is close to

the mean for the NLSYChild sample of 108 for children aged 10 and over but higher than

51

the national mean of 100.24 The mother of 98.7% of the population is employed and

60.3% are married with a spouse present in the family. Among the different substances

consumed by mothers alcohol is the highest at 75.5% with smoking at 44.9%. The

corresponding national estimates are 18.1% for alcohol and 62.2% for females smoking

in their lifetime. Among the substances consumed by mothers at pregnancy alcohol has

the highest figure.

This dissertation only uses smoke and alcohol as the dependent variables due to the

small samples in the case of marijuana and cocaine. The summary statistics given in

Table 6.2 indicate that smoking has the highest percentage of children at 13% followed

by alcohol at 11%. These figures are lower than national estimates for children between

12-17 but the sample size of the national survey is much larger at 25,357 children. But

the explanation for this is that the children in the sample here are younger. The statistics

from the National Institute of Drug Abuse indicate 37.1% of children smoked cigarettes

in their lifetime. For alcohol the figures were 42.9%. The percentage of children who are

working in the sample is about 40%.

When these estimates are compared with those for pregnant women between ages 15-

44 in the NHSDA (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) survey they are

consistent as those estimates indicate 17.6% of pregnant women smoke cigarettes

compared to our estimate of 28%.

For alcohol their figures indicate 13.8% compared to our estimate of 45%. The racial

composition indicates that roughly 29% of the population is Black and 21% is Hispanic.

24 The national mean for BPI is available from the National Health Interview Survey 1981.

52

While there is expected to be significant under-reporting in substance abuse by

young children the advantage of examining the age group from 10-14 is that parental

control may be thought to have a greater impact on this age group than in the case of

older children. Also the relative importance of peer pressure may be lower in this age

group but these hypotheses need to be tested in future analyses.

The Parenting Style classification uses the following 3 questions from the HOME (D)

section in the Mother Supplement Questionnaire of the NLSY-79 Mother-Child dataset

for 10-14 year old children. The first question is �Sometimes children get so angry at

their parents that they say things like �I hate you� or swear in a temper tantrum please

check which action(s) you would take if this happened�. The possible responses are

ground, spank, talk with child, give him or her household chore, ignore it, send to room

for more than one hour, take away his/her allowance, take away TV, phone or other

privileges, other, put child in a short �time out�. The second question is worded as

follows �If your child brought home a report card with grades lower than expected, how

likely would you be to do any of the following�. The responses are �contact his or her

teacher or principal?, �lecture the child?�, �keep a closer eye on child�s activities?�,

�punish the child?�, �talk with the child?, �wait and see if child improves on his/her

own?�, � tell child to spend more time on schoolwork?�, �spend more time helping child

with schoolwork?�, �limit or reduce child�s non-school activities (play,sports,clubs,etc)�.

The responses are scaled on a scale of �very unlikely� to �highly likely�. The third

question is worded as follows �Sometimes kids mind pretty well and sometimes they

don�t. Sometimes they do things that make you feel good. How many times in the past

week have you��The responses are �had to spank your child?�, �grounded him/her?�,

53

�taken away TV or other privileges?�, �praised child for doing something worthwhile?�,

�taken away his/her allowance?�, �shown child physical affection (kiss, hug, stroke hair,

etc)?�, �sent child to his/her room?�, �told another adult (spouse, friend, co-worker,

visitor, relative) something positive about the child?�. In the case of different parenting

styles the means indicate that Disengaged parents are the highest in the sample at 49%

and Authoritarian least at 7%. Disengaged parents are neither demanding nor responsive,

Authoritarian parents are highly demanding but not responsive. There are approximately

61% of parents who change their parenting styles for the same child across different

years. The estimates from Table 6.3 suggest that 14% of parents change their parenting

styles across different children in the same year. From the available estimates we can

draw the conclusion that the hypothesis of switching can be rejected strongly. On

examining the matrix more closely we can see that if we examine the diagonal elements

we can see that out of those parents who remained the same there were no Authoritative

parents who remained the same. Only 1% Authoritarian parent remained the same while

11% Permissive parents remained the same. There were 28% of Disengaged parents who

remained the same.

This dataset offers an opportunity to ask this question about parenting styles changing

across time and across children due to the longitudinal nature of the dataset and also due

to the multiple observations for each child.

54

To From

Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive Disengaged

Total

Authoritative

0 0 .133 .867 100

Authoritarian

0

.077 .077 84.6 100

Permissive

0 0 .458 .542 100

Disengaged 0 .030 .121 .848

100

Total

0 .02 .20 .78 100

Table 6.5 Proportion switching parenting styles across different years for the same child

To From

Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive Disengaged

Total

Authoritative .857 0 .143 0 100

Authoritarian .143

.714 0 .143 100

Permissive

.077 0 .808 .115 100

Disengaged

.019 .019 .038 .925 100

Total

.16 .06 .25 .53 100

Table 6.6: Switching parenting styles across different children in the same year

6.3 Description of variables and Coding scheme

The variables which are used in the empirical analysis subsequently can be described

here and the scale is described or characterized constituting how the different items can

be reasonably clustered under one common scale. The factor analysis was done using two

55

different scales. The first parenting style inventory was constructed with the two

subscales of demandingness and responsiveness and these are constructed from the

seminal Baumrind (1989) framework. There is an extension of this is in the Maccoby and

Martin (1983) framework where there are three scales i.e. warmth, restrict and ignored.

Warmth is analogous to responsiveness and restrict is analogous to being demanding

while ignored falls into a separate category which is being uninvolved.

The scaling was done to generate the different cronbach alpha values to check for

internal consistency. Scaling using these items gave a cronbach alpha of 0.4605 for

demandingness with 9 items included under this scale and 0.4277 for responsiveness with

9 items included under this scale. While the scale alphas could be as high as 0.80

potentially there isn�t a �thumb rule� as such about the threshold value for alpha which is

acceptable. That is partly a matter of judgment and partly a matter of subjective choice

about what is the level of internal consistency needed among the items. There is also a

possibility that items that have restricted variability or items which are skewed may fail

to correlate well with other items, even if they are measuring the same underlying

concept. Thus I did the scaling repeatedly to check or even delete those items which

maybe bringing down the value of the alpha and the scale might be better off without one

or more of these potentially troublesome items.

Then checking the inter-item correlations to find the highest correlations it was found

that using a cutoff of 0.5 there were a selected set of variables where the correlation was

found to be high. Using this threshold value there were 3 new scales which could be

constructed with 2 items under each scale. The number of items under each scale is not a

forced classification, its a chance that there are an equal number of items under each

56

scale. Then I scaled again using the different items under three new scales of warmth,

restrict and ignored. Under warmth scaling using the two items included gave a cronbach

alpha of 0.46 and for restrict a cronbach alpha of 0.56.

Scaling involves the assignment of objects to numbers according to a rule. Scaling is

different from a response scale, where scales assign numbers according to a common

rule. Scaling is used in this context to see how well these questions �hang together� and

in some instances to score all the responses to generate a single number that represents

the overall construct. Thus a scale refers to a set of items and each item on a scale has a

scale value. There are there major types of uni-dimensional scaling methods. Thus they

differ considerably in how they arrive at scale values for different items. Scale

construction involves the creation of empirical measures for theoretical constructs and

these measures mostly consist of several items. The process of measurement involves the

assignment of numbers to empirical realizations of the variables of interest. In Thurstone

and Guttman scales, each item represents degrees of the variables of interest, such as the

difficulty of an item. In Likert and Semantic Differential Scales, each item represents

different degrees of the variables of interest. The differences between the scales affect the

computation of reliability. Thus in the construction of scales many items have been used

to develop the scales. 25The concepts of directiveness have been used in the construction

of scales.

25 An improved Directiveness Scale, Australian Journal of Psychology, J. J. Ray and F.H.Lovejoy.

57

6.4 Scale characteristics and cronbach alpha results

The scaling was used as a method to recognize the patterns of inter-item correlations

which exist among different items within the variables which could all be potentially

used under one scale.

There are theoretical justifications which exist about the scale construction. It is infact

true that two measures of reliability can be used as dependent variables.

Table 6.5 below gives the different parenting style inventories and the items which

are included under each scale. The Cronbach alpha for these items in the Responsiveness

Subscale is 0.46.

Responsiveness subscale for parenting style inventory-1

Item definitions

Talk=1

=1 if Talk with the child; 0 otherwise

Momt=1

Mom talk with the child

Moms=1 Mom help child with the schoolwork

Momg=1 Mom talk with child for lower grades

Mome=1 Mom keep a closer eye on child�s activities

Moml=1 Mom lecture child for lower grades

Table 6.7 Responsiveness subscale for the parenting style inventory

In the case of the demandingness subscale there are few items which are classified

under the scale. These items have been constructed from 3 different questions in the

Mother Supplement. Some of the items are responses to the first question which is with

regard to the response of the Mother to the child�s behaviour. The other items have been

58

constructed from the next question which is a Likert scale about the responses of the

mother to the performance of the child in school. The third question is a frequency

question about the number of times the parent �actually� took one of the actions which

they said they would be likely to take in the first question. The first item is allow, which

is taking away the child�s allowance. The next scale is spank, which is spanking the child.

Another variable is ground, which is grounding the child. Another variable is Momp,

which is the Mother punishing the child. Another variable is Momt which is Mother

contacting the teacher about low grades. The next variable is Moml, which is Mother

limiting the child�s non-school activities. Another variable is Allowt, which is the number

of times they took away the child�s allowance. Finally, the variable is Spankt which is the

number of times the child was spanked.

Demandingness subscale for parenting style inventory-1

Item definitions

Allow Take away child�s allowance

Spank Spank the child Ground Ground the child Momp Mom punish the child Momt Mom contact teacher about low grades Moml Mom limit the child�s non-school activities Allowt

Number of times took away the child�s allowance

Spankt

Number of times spanked the child

Table 6.8 Demandingness subscale for parenting style inventory

6.5 Reliability and Consistency

It is noted that two measures of reliability were used as dependent variables (Borgers,

1997) and the first indicator is the reliability measured at the scale level, for which

59

Cronbach alpha was selected. The second indicator is measured at item level, being the

item-test correlation. Cronbach alpha as well as the item-test correlation cannot be

defined for individual children; they are only defined for groups of children. In order to

compare the reliability between several age categories, years of education categories,

groups of children had to be constructed. However the groups could not be constructed

by combining all three child characteristics. The result would be too many groups with

too few children in the different groups. Therefore, three separate groupings were

constructed were constructed, based on different parental response categories. For each

group of children the Cronbach alpha was computed for every scale in the questionnaire

they answered. Similarly, for every group of children item-rest correlations were

computed for each question.

This brings us to questionnaire characteristics and question design to elicit responses

from children. There could be positive effects such as the position of questions in the

questionnaire, and the existence of complex constructions in the question. Questions that

ask for a numeric quantity could have a negative effect. Also questions that invoke some

opinions have a positive effect on Cronbach�s alpha but a negative effect on item-rest

correlations. Questions that ask for attributes and capacities have a positive effect on

item-rest correlations. The number of words in the introductory text have a positive effect

and the more words used in the introductory text the more reliable the responses will be.

That is also true for the comprehensive readability index which has a positive effect on

both measures, the same as questions with a given reference period in the questionnaire

and sensitive questions.

60

There are overall issues concerning the reliability of responses and both child

characteristics and question characteristics affect the reliability of responses of children

in self-administered questionnaire research such as in the NLSY Mother-Child

Supplements. These effects of the child characteristics could work in different directions.

Younger children produce less reliable responses than older children and girls give more

consistent responses than boys. This is in support of the hypothesis that reliability

increases with the cognitive level and data quality increases with cognitive level (Borgers

& Hox, 1999). Younger children are sensitive to social desirability and young children

would be reluctant to express their own thoughts and feelings being afraid to suggest

something wrong (Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954).

Also ambiguous response scales could decrease the reliability of response and

ambiguous words in questions should be avoided as far as possible and it should be

recognized that the information about perspectives, attitudes and behaviour of children

should be collected from the children themselves.

61

CHAPTER 7: EMPIRICAL RESULTS

7.1 Results

The empirical model which is being used in this dissertation is a discrete choice

probit model. Such models are effective when qualitative choices are being made. The

goal of this research is to provide more precision and more definitiveness in

understanding the role of parents in the development of children.26 The precision is

increased by testing a conceptual framework that emphasizes the associations between

parenting dimensions and key domains of child functioning. The paths of this framework

were derived from the substantial empirical and theoretical literatures finding links

between parenting and child development. These literatures were interpreted to be

compelling enough to recommend moving towards greater precision in understanding the

associations, and to recommend the hypothesized paths of the model across time.

Behavioural Problem Index

The results are given here for all the different types of regression analysis. The

empirical specification was tested on the data and the following results hold for the linear

regression model. This model was selected in the case of the behavioural problem index.

The results showed that parenting style is significant as an explanatory variable in

determining child behaviour controlling for random effects [see Table 7.1].

26 Parental Support, Psychological Control and Behavioural Control: Assessing Relevance Across Time, Method and Culture, Barber, Stolz, Olsen and Maugham, Monographs Series of the Society for Research in Child Development.

62

The coefficient on authoritative parenting style is 5.78 and the coefficient on

authoritarian parenting style is 4.44 and similarly the coefficient on disengaged parenting

style is 3.39 and all the parenting styles come out to be highly significant.

Random Effects OLS Analysis of BPI Dependent Variable: BPI

Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT 99.20 4.10 AUTHORITATIVE 5.78* 1.24 AUTHORITARIAN 4 0.44* 1.80 DISENGAGED 3.39* 0.96 ALLOWANCE -0.35 0.99 CWORK 0.43 0.84 CHILDAGE 0.21 0.32 BLACK 0.26 1.05 HISPANIC 0.04 1.16 MALE 2.89* 1.12 MOMSMK 2.86* 0.88 MOMSP 0.71 1.23 # of observations 1069 # of children 954

Table 7.1 Random effects OLS model for BPI

The regression reported in the first column is estimated by OLS with standard errors

which are robust to the presence of heteroskedasticity. The reported estimate omits the

lagged endogenous variable since inclusion severely reduces the number of observations.

Smoking

The outcomes include drug and alcohol outcomes and behavioural outcomes. In this

research since substance use outcomes were measured repeatedly across a panel i.e. a

series of repeat observations on the same person, the goal is often to examine the effects

63

of different treatments and/or predictors on usage levels can be aggregated to provide a

single outcome per subject, for example an average substance use. In these cases,

standard statistical procedures can be applied. However, these approaches are limited

because they ignore changes across time or they only consider within subject change that

is linear. Finally, from a statistical point of view these approaches are inefficient. The

development of more general statistical methods for longitudinal data analysis has been

an active area of statistical research. There are several features that make Random-Effects

Regression Models especially useful in longitudinal research.

The results are given here for all the different types of regression analysis. The

empirical specification was tested on the data and the following results hold for the linear

regression model.

Random Effects Probit analysis of Smoking Dependent Variable: Smoking

Table 7.2 Random effects Probit model for Smoking

Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT -9.74 3.68 AUTHORITATIVE 0.31 0.33 AUTHORITARIAN 0.44 0.52 DISENGAGED 0.19 0.24 ALLOWANCE 0.11 0.25 CWORK 0.58 0.28 CHILDAGE 0.56 0.21 BLACK -1.13 0.49 HISPANIC -0.23 0.27 MALE 0.08 0.20 MOMSMK 0.69 0.36 MOMSP 0.27 0.28 # of observations 1049 # of children 940

64

In order to examine the relationship between parenting style and other child outcomes

such as smoking and alcohol consumption an alternative model i.e. a discrete choice

probability model was selected. Additionally, in the case of smoking and alcohol

consumption as dependent variables since there are repeat observations on the same

individual I have used a random effects probit model. This model takes account of child-

specific effects. Such a specification is typical of panel data equations. For the main

results from the random effects probit analysis [see Tables 7.2].

Random Effects Tobit Model for Smoking Dependent Variable: Csmok Variable Coefficient

SE-error CONSTANT .0.46 2.03 AUTHORITATIVE 0.57* 0.28 AUTHORITARIAN 0.55* 0.53 DISENGAGED -0.43 0.28 CWORK 0.60* 0.15 CHILDAGE -0.002 0.009 BLACK -0.42 0.30 HISPANIC 0.29 0.31 MOMSMK -0.03 0.41 MOMSP 0.12 0.42 # of observations 1049 # of children 940

Table 7.3 Tobit model for Smoking intensity

65

Random Effects Probit Analysis of Smoking consumption (With interactions of parenting style and race) Dependent Variable: Smoking Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT -9.90 3.69 AUTHORITATIVE -0.19 0.58 AUTHORITATIVE*BLACK -11.62 804949.8 AUTHORITATIVE*HISPANIC 0.79 0.96 AUTHORITARIAN 0.26 0.41 AUTHORITARIAN*BLACK 0.51 1.09 DISENGAGED -0.005 0.29 DISENGAGED*BLACK 1.35 1.05 DISENGAGED*HISPANIC 0.23 0.57 ALLOWANCE 0.13 0.26 CWORK 0.60 0.29 CHILDAGE 0.57 0.22 BLACK -2.07 1.13 HISPANIC -0.41 0.47 MALE 0.09 0.21 MOMSMK 0.29 0.37 MOMSP 0.29 0.29 # of observations 1049 # of children 940

Table 7.4 Random Effects Probit Analysis of Smoking

Alcohol Consumption

As we see from Table 7.5 below, the authoritative parenting style does not affect

probability, nor does allowance. The coefficient on authoritative style is 0.02. No other

factors were significant.

66

Table 7.5 Random Effects Probit Analysis of Alcohol

Random Effects Tobit Model for Alcohol Dependent Variable: Cdrnk Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT 232.4 79.44 AUTHORITATIVE -9.98 9.85 AUTHORITARIAN 18.29 26.27 DISENGAGED -21.66 16.81 CWORK -19.40* 5.61 CHILDAGE -.31 .26 BLACK -16.90 11.45 HISPANIC -4.67 15.91 MOMSMK -22.65 19.46 MOMSP 16.44 20.55 # of observations 1069 # of children 954

Table 7.6 Tobit model for alcohol intensity

Random Effects Probit Analysis of Alcohol Consumption Dependent Variable: Alcohol

Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT -4.46 0.60 AUTHORITATIVE 0.02 0.17 AUTHORITARIAN 0.18 0.23 DISENGAGED 0.17 0.12 ALLOWANCE -0.05 0.13 CWORK 0.44 0.10 CHILDAGE 0.23 0.04 BLACK -0.06 0.12 HISPANIC 0.26 0.13 MALE -0.05 0.10 #of observations 1069 # of children 954

67

Referring to the Table 7.6, please note that in the case of the tobit model for the

number of drinks consumed the results are not highly significant in the case of child-

specific and mother-specific effects.

Random Effects Probit Analysis of Alcohol consumption (With Interactions of parenting style and race) Dependent Variable: Alcohol Variable Coefficient SE-error CONSTANT -4.45 0.61 AUTHORITATIVE 0.20 0.28 AUTHORITATIVE*BLACK -0.08 0.51 AUTHORITARIAN -0.006 0.43 AUTHORITARIAN*BLACK 0.18 0.16 AUTHORITARIAN*HISPANIC -0.05 0.34 DISENGAGED -0.007 0.28 DISENGAGED*BLACK 0.48 0.10 DISENGAGED*HISPANIC 0.23 0.04 ALLOWANCE -0.01 0.29 CWORK 0.20 0.22 CHILDAGE -0.05 01.10 BLACK -0.05 0.10 HISPANIC 0.11 0.13 MALE -0.01 0.14 MOMSMK 0.11 0.13 MOMSP -0.01 0.61 # of observations 1069 # of children 954

Table 7.7 Random Effects Probit Analysis of Alcohol

The Table 7.7 shows the random effects probit models with interactions of

parenting style and race. In the case of the number of cigarettes smoked and number of

alcoholic drinks consumed a tobit model was selected which accounts for the censoring

values which arise in these responses due the sample selection which has already taken

place in the previous question which asked if the respondents consume substances or not.

68

The respondents are only taken to the follow-up question if they have answered �yes� to

the previous question. Thus the results for the tobit model show that when the number of

cigarettes are regressed on the explanatory variables, in the case of the child-specific

effects the results come out to be significant. In the case of mother-specific effects the

results are also significant.

7.2 Correlations

Recall that it was expected that smoking and behavioural problem index will be

positively related. To analyze the data, a Pearson Product Moment correlation was

calculated. Results revealed that analyzing the data for girls and boys separately for girls

the correlation coefficient is 0.15 for smoking. For the full sample the correlation

between smoking and the behavioural problem index is higher than for alcohol and the

behavioural problem index [see Table 7.12]. For girls the correlation coefficient is 0.15

for smoking while for boys the corresponding figure is 0.14. In the case of alcohol, the

figure is 0.11 for girls and 0.06 for boys. The figures for correlations between substance

use and the externalizing behavioural problem index and reveals that for the full sample

again smoking has a higher correlation than alcohol [see Table 7.13]. In the case of girls,

the correlation is 0.14 for smoking and 0.16 for boys. In the case of alcohol, the figures

are 0.09 for girls and 0.05 for boys the consumption of alcohol and are significant.

69

Correlations between substance use and BPI

BPI�Substance

use

Sample Size

(Full)

SampleSize

(Boys)

Sample Size

(Girls)

Pearson Correlation coefficient

(Full)


(Boys)


(Girls)

BPI-Smoke 1615 804 811 0.14524 0.14386 0.15056

BPI-Alcohol 1611 807 811 0.09073 0.06553 0.11936

Table 7.8 Correlations between substance use and BPI

Correlations between substance use and BPI-Externalizing

BPIe�Substance use

Sample Size

(Full)

Sample Size (Boys)

Sample Size

(Girls)

Pearson Correlation coefficient (Full)

Pearson Correlation coefficient (Boys)

Pearson Correlation coefficient (Girls)

BPIe-Smoke

1198 598 600 0.15250 0.16334 0.14588

BPIe-Alcohol

1197 597 600 0.05920 0.06553 0.09842

Table 7.9 Correlations between substance use and BPI-Externalizing

7.3 Discussion and Interpretation

Thus the results of the dissertation have revealed that the effect of parenting style is

significant in the NLSY-Child sample for 10-14 year old children depending on the child

outcome being investigated. In the case of smoking and alcohol consumption the results

are not significant but in the case of behaviour i.e. the behavioural problem index the

results are highly significant. In the case of the behavioural problem index the linear

70

regression model is used but in the case of smoking and alcohol consumption the discrete

probability models are used. This study controlled for all family background factors

including parental substance use. In the case of parental substance use the results show

that the coefficients are significant. Thus in this study the importance of Parenting style

is highlighted and Parenting style is constructed as an index from several questionnaires

responses. Therefore this is a study which brings out the importance of Parent-Child

interactions from the Sociology and Psychology literature and uses the methodology and

framework of Economics to model these relationships.

Parenting style is an independent variable influencing child outcomes, focusing here

on alcohol and smoking. While exploring this relationship there is a need to control for

all other influences which are simultaneously impacting the child outcomes. Parenting

style is also distant from parenting practices which are the actions parents can take.

Parenting style is a broader and comprehensive term which consists of various parenting

practices and additionally a broader spectrum of parental behaviours which define the

parenting style in these households.

In the switching results the pattern of results turned out this way because Disengaged

is pulling out from every other category and there is a very high percentage of

disengaged. Across years its highly consistent. This study enables us to understand the

importance of all explanatory factors in substance use by young children. These results

and studies are important in determining how policy makers could influence these

juvenile delinquent behaviours. These behaviours are potentially risky both for the

individual and also put the society at risk in general due to their impact through various

criminal activities. Thus the dynamics of intra-familial interactions is one more area

71

which is being exploited to get a better view of a healthy society which has healthy

children as well from the perspective of maintaining peace and order which needs the

youth to function in an orderly manner.

Thus there is a substantial interest in trying to find all the possible causal mechanisms

which can explain these behaviours and in the case of very young children the parental

control is much higher then parenting style can be explored as a logical explanation for

substance use in households. Its partially an explanation or an interest to model

comparative statics where current phenomenon of substance use can be explained.

Moreover its also to predict and forecast these behaviours and how such families could be

identified as possible homes for juvenile delinquency. This is important especially in the

current age group which is young enough to be identified and if possible corrected to

prevent the onset of substance use in later adolescent years. There are several studies

which examine the high-school population and there are surveys such as Monitoring the

Future Surveys and High School and Beyond Surveys which concentrate on older

adolescents. The interest in younger age groups is important because the process or

likelihood of substance use can be identified and moreover these youth would be entering

the labour market in the future and therefore can be identified early in the process.

7.8 Explanation

The main hypothesis centered around investigating the smoking and alcohol

outcomes and bpi for young children and the research question addressed here was how

significant is parenting style as an explanatory variable in determining child substance

use.

72

The results showed in the dissertation proved to be significant and important and

contribute to a deeper understanding of parenting style and parenting style variables

proved to be significantly affecting child substance use. This result can be supported by

the existing literature in child and family studies (Robinette, Fletcher and Wright, 2002)

and (Byrne, Haddock & Poston, 2002) which showed this kind of a relationship.

Several possible explanations could be forwarded for these pattern of results. One

explanation is that the small proportion of children who actually engage in these

behaviours skewed the results due to the small sample size. Also this could be because

peer effects are becoming stronger in this age group especially in the higher age groups

closer to 14 and above. This could be responsible for the declining influence of parenting

style, also when children go to high school there are additional neighborhood effects. The

other explanation goes further back into the questionnaire and the wording of the

questions, and possibly the questions were not selective enough in screening the children

who engaged in these deviant behaviours, or the children did not perhaps understand the

questions. In the case of the follow-up questions which were used to construct indexes of

the intensity of these behaviours measuring the number of cigarettes smoked and the

number of alcoholic drinks consumed, the parenting style variables come to be a

significant predictor for alcohol consumption when controlling for child-specific effects.

Though some of the results particularly in the case of smoking and alcohol consumption

in the discrete-choice models the results were not anticipated but it does not necessarily

point to a �bad data� problem or the hypothesis needs to be reformulated.

This could be because smoking and alcohol outcomes are inappropriate outcomes for

this age group and positive outcomes very rarely occur and thus it is hard to estimate

73

probit models. This could even mean that this is something unexpected and warrants for

further study and that the role of parenting style in the case of smoking and alcohol

consumption needs to be re-examined and while the results did not support the

hypothesis, the effect of parenting style is not necessarily unimportant or should be

neglected. In this sample and with this age-group of children between 10 and 14 and

with the questions which were asked of these children the results are in this direction and

this is especially clear when with the questions used on intensity of cigarettes used and

alcohol consumed i.e. the number of alcoholic drinks and the total number of cigarettes

consumed the results come out to be highly significant.

In the case of an alternative dependent variable which is child behaviour and not as

adverse as the substance use outcomes the results come to be highly significant as well.

Thus this proves that the results are highly driven by the selection of variables.

74

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

8.1 Conclusion

Thus the results of the dissertation have revealed that the effect of parenting style is

significant in the NLSY-Child sample for 10-14 year old children depending on the child

outcome being investigated. In the case of smoking and alcohol consumption the results

are not highly significant but in the case of behaviour i.e. the behavioural problem index

the results are significant. In the case of the behavioural problem index the linear

regression model is used but in the case of smoking and alcohol consumption the discrete

probability models are used. This study controlled for all family background factors

including parental substance use. In the case of parental substance use the results show

that the coefficients are significant. Thus in this study the importance of Parenting style

is highlighted and Parenting style is constructed as an index from several questionnaires

responses. Therefore this is a study which brings out the importance of Parent-Child

interactions from the Sociology and Psychology literature and uses the methodology and

framework of Economics to model these relationships. Parenting style is an independent

variable influencing child outcomes, focusing here on alcohol and smoking. While

exploring this relationship there is a need to control for all other influences which are

simultaneously impacting the child outcomes. Parenting style is also distant from

parenting practices which are the actions parents can take.

75

Parenting style is a broader and comprehensive term which consists of various

parenting practices and additionally a broader spectrum of parental behaviours which

define the parenting style in these households.

8.2 Policy Recommendations

Thus this study contributes to the literature with a better understanding of the dynamics

of intra-familial interactions. These interactions enable the preservation of the social

fabric which underlies a healthy population. Thus there is a great interest in finding the

optimal parenting style for society which would not only mitigate the substance use by

young children in households but would lower crime and juvenile delinquency. This

study enables us to understand the importance of all explanatory factors in substance use

by young children. These results and studies are important in determining how policy

makers could influence these juvenile delinquent behaviours. These behaviours are

potentially risky both for the individual and also put the society at risk in general due to

their impact through various criminal activities. Thus the dynamics of intra-familial

interactions is one more area which is being exploited to get a better view of a healthy

society which has healthy children as well from the perspective of maintaining peace and

order which needs the youth to function in an orderly manner. Thus there is a substantial

interest in trying to find all the possible causal mechanisms which can explain these

behaviours and in the case of very young children the parental control is much higher

76

then parenting style can be explored as a logical explanation for substance use in

households.

Its partially an explanation or an interest to model comparative statics where current

phenomenon of substance use can be explained. Moreover its also to predict and forecast

these behaviours and how such families could be identified as possible homes for

juvenile delinquency.

This is important especially in the current age group which is young enough to be

identified and if possible corrected to prevent the onset of substance use in later

adolescent years. There are several studies which examine the high-school population

and there are surveys such as Monitoring the Future Surveys and High School and

Beyond Surveys which concentrate on older adolescents. The interest in younger age

groups is important because the process or likelihood of substance use can be identified

and moreover these youth would be entering the labour market in the future and therefore

can be identified early in the process.

77

Means and standard deviations under different parenting styles across Gender

Parenting Styles

Sample Size Girls)

Sample Size (Boys)

Mean (Girls)

Mean (Boys)

Standard deviation (Girls)

Standard deviation (Boys)

Authorve 821 822 0.23021 0.2494 0.4212 0.4329 Authoran 821 822 0.10597 0.0815 0.3080 0.2738 Permisve 821 822 0.23508 0.2567 0.4243 0.4371 Disengag 821 822 0.4287 0.4124 0.4952 0.4926

Table 8.1 Means and Standard Deviations under parenting styles across gender

78

Table 8.2 Cronbach alpha measures of coefficient

Item Means

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Variance

.4870 .0459 .9891 .9432 21.5513 0.1260

Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Variance .1302

.0108 .2456 .2349 22.8066 0.0070

Table 8.3 Means and Variances of Factor Analysis Items

Cronbach Alpha measures of coefficient Parenting Styles

Sample Size (Girls)

SampleSize (Boys)

Mean (Girls)

Mean (Boys)

Standard deviation (Girls)

Standard deviation(Boys)

Authorve

821 822 0.23021 0.2494 0.4212 0.4329

Authoran

821 822 0.10597 0.0815 0.3080 0.2738

Permisve

821 822 0.23508 0.2567 0.4243 0.4371

Disengag

821 822 0.4287 0.4124 0.4952 0.4926

79

Eige

nval

ues

Number1 2 3 4 5

.5

1

1.5

Figure 8.1: Eigenvalues plot

80

Figure 8.2 Trends in smoking cigarettes and consumption of alcohol for 12-17 year old respondents

Trends in smoking cigarettes and consumption of alcohol for 12-17 year old respondents

(1965-97)

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

Years

Num

ber o

f ini

tiate

s (1,

000s

)

SmokeAlcohol

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Michelle Janssen. (1995). �Youth in Crisis: An Examination of Adverse Risk Factors Affecting Children�s Cognitive and Behavioural/Emotional Development, Children Ages 10-16�, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Dallas.

Akabayashi, Hideo. (1996). �On the role of incentives in the formation of human capital in the family� Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Albanese, Paul J. (1988). Psychological Foundations of Economic Behaviour edited with a foreword by Tibor Scitovsky.

Andreoni, James (1989). �Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence�, Journal of Political Economy, 1989, 97 (6), 1447-1458. Armsden, Gay C. and Mark T.Greenberg. (1987) �The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual Differences and Their Relationship to Psychological Well-Being in Adolescence�, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 16, No. 5, 427-455.

Batson, C. D. (1991) The altruism question: Towards a social social-psychological answer, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumrind, Diana (1989). �The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse�, Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.

Becker, Gary S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family, Enlarged edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bernheim, D. & Stark, O. (1988). �Altruism within the family reconsidered: Do nice guys finish last�, 78, American Economic Review, 1034-45.

82

Bracken, Bruce A., Sherry Bunch, Timothy Z. Keith and Patricia B. Keith (2000). �Child and Adolescent Multidimensional Self-Concept: A Five-Instrument Factor Analysis�, Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 37 (6), 483-493. Brandstatter, Hermann and Werner Guth (1994). Essays on Economic Psychology, Springer-Verlag 1994. Brock, William A. and Steven N. Durlauf (2000).�Discrete Choice with Social Interactions�, Review of Economics Studies, 2001, 68, 235-260.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1986). �Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives� Development Psychology, Vol. 22, No.6, 723-42.

Cardia, Emanuela & Michel, Philippe, (2004). "Altruism, intergenerational transfers of time and bequests," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 1681-1701. Carlson, Marcia Jeanne (1999). �Family Structure, Father Involvement and Adolescent Behavioural Outcomes�, Ph.D. Dissertation University of Michigan.

Courts, Frederick A. (1966). �Psychological Statistics: An Introduction�, Homewood: Dorsey Press, 1966.

Darling, Nancy and Teru Toyokawa �Construction and Validation of the Parenting Style Inventory 11 (PS 11)�, Department of Human Development and Family Studies. Dovidio, J. F., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Helping and altruism. In Fletcher, G. J. 0. & dark, M. S.(Eds.) International handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 162-195) Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Eberweing, Randall Olsen and Patricia Reagan, (2003) �Intracluster Correlation and Complex Sampling: Do Geographic Data Lessen the Problem�.

Emerson,Patrick M. and Andre Portela (2001). �Bargaining over Sons and Daughters: Child Labor, School Attendance and Intra-Household Gender Bias in Brazil� Working paper No. 02-W13, May 2002.

Feldman, S. Shirley, and Glen R. Elliott, eds. (1990) �At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent�. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

83

Finken, Laura Lei (1996). �A Developmental Extension of the Propensity-Event Theory to Adolescents� Reckless Behaviour�, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Fudenberg, Dean and Jean Tirole (1984). �The Fat-Cat Effect, the Puppy-Dog Ploy, and the Lean and Hungry Look�, The American Economic Review, Vol. 74, Issue 2, 361-66 Gardner, Robert C. 2001. �Psychological Statistics using SPSS for Windows�.

Green, Leonard, and John H. Kagel, eds. (1987). Advances in Behavioural Economics. Vol. 1. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.Green.

Gregory, Robert J. (2000). �Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications� Third Edition, Allyn &Bacon, Inc. Needham Heights MA USA.

Hao, Linxin, V. Joseph Hotz and Ginger Zhe Jin (2000). �Games Daughters and Parents Play: Teenage Childbearing, Parental Reputation and Strategic Transfers� NBER Working Paper 7670.

Hill, J.P. (1987). �Research on adolescents and their families: Past and Prospect�, In C.E. Irwin (Ed.) New Directions for Child Development, Vol.37, 13-31.

Hernstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray (1994). �The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life� The Free Press. 1994. Hirschi, Travis and Michael J. Hindelang (1977). �Intelligence and Delinquency: A Revisionist Review�, American Economic Review, Vol. 42 (August): 571-87.

Hoffman, Martin L. and Lois W. Hoffman (1964). �Review of Child Development Research�, Volume 1 Publisher: University of Chicago Press 1964. Holmstrom, Bengt (1979). �Moral Hazard and Observability�, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, Issue 1, 74-91. Jessor, S.L., and Jessor, R. (1974). �Maternal Ideology and Adolescent Problem Behaviour� Development Psychology, 10, 246-54. Kalai, Ehud (1977) �Nonsymmetric Nash Solutions and Replications of 2-Person Bargaining�, International Journal of Game Theory, No. 6, pp. 129-133.

84

Kaufmann, Dagmar, Ellis Gesten, Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Octavio Salcedo, Gianna Rendina-Gobioff, and Ray Gadd (2000). �The Relationship between Parenting Style and Children�s Adjustment: The Parent�s Perspective�, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 231-45.

Kooreman, Peter and Adriaan Soetevent (2002). �A Discrete Choice Model with Social Interactions; an Analysis of High School Behaviour� 1-28, CCSO Working Papers 200401, University of Groningen, CCSO Centre for Economic Research. Krebs, D. L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146. Kung, M.S. and Albert D. Farrell (2000). �The Role of Parents and Peers in Early Adolescent Substance Use: An Examination of Mediation and Moderating Effects� Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 9 No. 4, 509-528. Lane, J., Dean Gerstein, Lynn Huang and Douglas Wright (1997). �Risk and Protective Factors for Adolescent Drug Use: Findings from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse� Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Lambert, Richard (1983). �Long-term contracts and moral hazard� The Bell Journal of Economics, 1983, 441-452.

Larson, Reed W., Suzanne Wilson, B. Bradford Brown, Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Suman Verma (2002). �Changes in Adolescents� Interpersonal Experiences: Are they being Prepared for Adult Relationships in the Twenty-First Century�, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 31-68. Lipstick, Lewis P. and Leonard L. Mitnick (1991). Self-Regulatory Behaviour and Risk Taking: Causes and Consequences, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lea, Stephen E.G., Paul Webley and Brian M.Young (1992). New Directions in Economic Psychology: Theory, Experiment and Application United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1992.

Maccoby, Eleanor E, and John A. Martin. (1983). �Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-Child Interaction� in Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4 edited by E. M. Hetherington.

85

Mach, Traci and Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes (2001). �The Impact of Families on Juvenile Substance Use�, Working Paper, April 2001.

Murphy, Kevin R. and Charles O. Davidshofer (2001). �Psychological Testing, Principles and Applications�, Fifth Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

Nash, J.F. (1953), �Two-person cooperative games�, Econometrica 21 128-140.

Pavoni, Nicola, and Arphad Abraham (2004). �First-Order Approach for Principal-Agent Models with Hidden Borrowing and Lending: The Two-person Case�, Society for Economic Dynamics: 2004 Meeting Papers, 572. Reagan, Patricia B. and Randall J. Olsen, (2000). �You Can Go Home Again: Evidence from Longitudinal Data�, Demography, Vol. 37, no. 13, 339-350.

Reagan, Patricia B. and Janet Currie (1998), �Distance to Hospital and Children�s access to care: Is being closer better, and for whom?� NBER Working Paper 6836.

Rogerson, Richard (1985). �Repeated Moral Hazard� Econometrica, Vol. 53(1), 69-76.

Rushton, J. P. (1980) Altruism, Socialization, and Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Santrock, John (1998). �Adolescence�, 3rd edition, Mc Graw Hill.

Seo, Gye Soon Kong (1998). �The Impact of Maternal Problem Drinking on Children�s Developmental Outcomes: Focus on Parenting as Mediator� Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University. Schneeweiss, Hans and Harald Mathes (1995) �Factor Analysis and Principal Components�, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 55, 105-24.

Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shumacher, Jorg, Martin Eisemann, Andreas Hinz & Elmar Brahler �The Assessment of Perceived Parental Rearing and its Relationship with Life Satisfaction and Interpersonal Problems: A German General Population Study�.

86

Steinberg, Laurence, Nina S. Mounts and Susie D. Lamborn and Sanford M. Dornbusch (1991) �Authoritative Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment Across Varied Ecological Niches� Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(1), 19-36.

Steinberg, Laurence (1989) �Adolescence�, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill.

Steinberg, Laurence, Sanford M. Dornbusch, B. Bradford Brown (1992) �Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Achievement�, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 6, 723-729. Svejnar, Jan (1982). �On the theory of participatory firm�, Journal of Economic Theory, No. 27 pp. 313-330. Tefler, Jo Ann and Judy Lupart (2001) �Gender, Grade and Achievement Differences in Student Perceptions of Parental Support�, Presented at the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Quebec.

Weinberg, Bruce (2000) �An Incentive Model of the effect of parental income on children� Journal of Political Economy, 109(2), 266-80.

Yin, Tao (2000) �The Relationship between Mother�s Alcohol Use and Child�s Well-Being� Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.

THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE IN CHILD - ResearchGate

Documents

Transcript of THE ROLE OF PARENTING STYLE IN CHILD - ResearchGate