See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284239814

The Parenting Styles and Dimensions

Questionnaire (PSDQ)
Article January 2001

CITATIONS

READS

73

612

4 authors, including:
Clyde C. Robinson

Susanne Olsen Roper

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Cam

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Cam

31 PUBLICATIONS 1,566 CITATIONS

53 PUBLICATIONS 1,771 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Craig H Hart
Brigham Young University - Provo Main Cam
63 PUBLICATIONS 3,309 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Clyde C. Robinson

Retrieved on: 11 August 2016

Psycholo gical Repo rts, 1995, 7 7, 819-8 30.

AUTHORITATIVE, AUTHORITARIAN, AND PERMISSIVE

PARENTING PRACTICES: DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MEASURE1
CLYDE C. ROBINSON, BARBARA MANDLECO,
SUSANNE FROST OLSEN, AND CRAIG H. HART
Brigham Young University

Summ ary. -- A 133-item parenting questionnaire was completed by 1251 parents of preschool and
school-age children. Items in this measure were reduced using principle axes factor analyses followed by
varimax rotation. Three global parenting dimensions emerged consistent with Baumrinds authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive typologies. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach alpha
and additional items were deleted. A 62-item instrument was retained, and the global parenting dimensions
were subsequently analyzed to determine their internal structures using principle axes factor analyses
followed by oblique rotation. For each of the three global dimensions a number of specific factors were
identified.

Baumrinds Contribution
Baumrinds (1971) authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies are currently
widely employed models of parenting styles. Baumrind originally conceptualized eight types of
parents including rejecting-neglecting, nonconforming, authoritative nonconforming,
authoritarian-rejecting-neglecting, etc. Baumrind (1991) later discusses sex-role traditional as an
additional type of parent. For the purposes of this paper we address the three main types of
parenting styles commonly studied (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive). Over the past two
decades, research in the United States based on Baumrinds three major prototypes has yielded a
consistent picture of the types of parenting thought to enhance or mitigate the successful
socialization of middle-class children. For example, authoritative parenting style has been shown
to assist young children and adolescents develop instrumental competence which is characterized
by psychosocial maturity, cooperation with peers and adults, responsible independence, and
academic success (for reviews, see Baumrind, 1971, 1989, 1991). Many methodological
strategies currently used to derive Baumrinds three main typologies are limited in many respects.
The purpose of this report is to introduce findings regarding a new measure designed to assess
empirically these typologies for parents of preschool and school-age children.
Methodological Strategies and Limitations
Baumrinds conceptualization encompasses parents attitudes and values about parenting,
their beliefs about the nature of children as well as the specific practices they employ to socialize
their children. Baumrind used a multimethod approach to assess parenting styles that included
1

Requests for reprints should be sent to Clyde C. Robinson, Department of Marriage, Family, and Human
Development, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84604.

820

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

parent rating scales, psychologists Q-sorts, and behavioral observations. For research on
socialization , however, Baumrinds approach has several disadvantages. For example, because
observations and interviewing are extensive, fewer subjects can be included in studies. In
addition, the cost for the approach is high in terms of special training required for data-gathering
personnel and the time required for collecting data.
A common strategy in assessing Baumrinds three main typologies has been to obtain
adolescents reports of parents parenting styles (e.g., Buri, 1991; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,
Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Greenberger, 1988; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991).
These indirect parenting measures, completed by adolescents and used in assessing adolescent
outcomes, eliminate several disadvantages of Baumrinds approach; however, these particular
methods may be unsatisfactory for use with younger children since they are designed particularly
for adolescents reporting on how they were parented and academic-related content is often used
in the questionnaire items.
Specifically, the challenge for preadolescent children is that they may not assess accurately
their parents parenting practices. Thus, a widely used parenting practices instrument, developed
for parents of young children, has been Blocks (1965) Child-rearing Practices Report, a 91-item
Q-sort. Disadvantages of this report are that it (a) contains a large number of determined factors
(28 to 33) with moderate to low reliabilities, (b) it does not adequately tap Baumrinds typology,
and (c) it is comprised of many items which may be outdated or inconsistent with the current
literature. Also, items which tap the parental belief domain, e.g., ?I believe that a child should be
seen and not heard, and items which tap the parental practice domain, e.g., ?I dont go out if I
have to leave my child with a stranger, are incorporated into Blocks report without
distinguishing between the two domains. In addition, few items in Blocks report describe
inductive reasoning, and few items can be classified into Baumrinds conceptualizations of
authoritative parental behavior of child-centeredness versus parent-centeredness. Only one item
addresses the issue of democratic give and take. Rickel and Biasatti (1982) showed that Blocks
report can be revised into a questionnaire in which a 6-point scale is employed without
decreasing reliability or affecting the factor structure.
Some attempts have been made by researchers interested in socialization (Kochanska,
Kuczynski, & Radke-Yarrow, 1989; Trickett & Susman, 1988) to reduce the number of factors in
the Block report and make them more consistent with Baumrinds conceptualizations (Chao,
1994). In constructing their measure Kochanska, et al. (1989) incorporated from the Block
original solutions only those factors which they deemed to be congruent with authoritarian and
authoritative child-rearing patterns. However, a limitation with this strategy was that they used
conceptual guidelines rather than empirical derivations. The authoritative pattern consisted of
the factors, expression of affection, e.g., ?I feel a child should be given comfort and
understanding when he/she is scared or upset, rational guidance, e.g., ?I make sure my child
knows that I appreciate what he/she tries or accomplishes, encouragement of independence, e.g.,
?If my child gets into trouble, I expect him/her to handle the problem mostly by him/herself.
The authoritarian pattern consisted of the factors authoritarian control, e.g., ?I believe children

PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE

821

should not have secrets from their parents, supervision of the child, e.g., ?I believe it is unwise
to let children play a lot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups, and control by
anxiety induction, e.g., ? I teach my child that in one way or another punishment will find
him/her when he/she is bad. Unfortunately, the reliabilities of these two conceptual scales were
not reported. Trickett and Susman (1988) also conceptually grouped Blocks original factors into
three scales of enjoyment of child and parental role, encouragement of autonomy, and
authoritarian control. In examining these items the conceptual basis for these scales is not clear.
In addition to concerns about conceptually derived inventories, another issue in developing
measures to assess parenting typologies for young children lies in empirically identifying
practices that comprise the typologies (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). For example, Buri and
Greenbergers adolescent instruments have been modified for parents of younger children to
complete; however, these measures are mainly designed to assess Baumrinds main global
typologies. As Smetana (1994) pointed out, global typologies may give little information about
ways specific parenting practices are related to childrens behavior. For instance, within the
authoritative typology, it would be reasonable to assume that inductive practices would be related
more to childrens adaptive social cognitions and that parental warmth and involvement would
have stronger linkages with childrens prosocial behavior, e.g., helping, sharing, comforting. As
Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggest, different parenting practices within a typology would be
more or less important to investigate depending on the specific developmental outcome of
interest.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was not only to develop an empirical means of
assessing global typologies consistent with Baumrinds main conceptualizations for parents of
preadolescent children but also to identify specific parenting practices that occur within the
context of the typologies (cf. Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Factor and reliability analyses were
conducted to achieve these aims.
METHOD
Initially, 133 questionnaire items with a 5-point scale anchored by never (1) and always (5)
was developed using 80 items from Blocks report and 53 new items. The new items were
constructed based on conceptualizations of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies
drawn from the current literature that appeared to have face validity. Items reflecting Baumrinds
other typologies were not included in this instrument. The parenting practices questionnaire was
completed by 1,251 volunteer parents (534 fathers and 717 mothers) residing in communities
located in Utah. Of these participants, 32% were parents of preschool-age children from
university/Head Start preschools and 68% were parents of school-age children from parochial
and public elementary schools. Fathers had a mean age of 37.9 yr. (ranging from 22 to 63) and
mothers had a mean age of 35.6 yr. (ranging from 20 to 57). Fathers had completed a mean of
15.3 yr. of schooling (ranging from 8 to 23), and mothers had completed a mean of 14.6 yr. of
schooling (also ranging from 8 to 23). The majority of the participants were Caucasian from twoparent families whose median family income was approximately $30,000.

822

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

RESULTS
The studys design consisted of two phases. For the first phase we planned to extract from
the 133-item questionnaire three factors deemed to theoretically correspond with Baumrinds
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive typologies. Initial reductions in number of items were
accomplished by a series of principle axes factor analyses followed by varimax rotations. Items
were retained if they (a) had a loading near or over .30 (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), (b)
loaded for both fathers and mothers, and (c) loaded for parents of both preschool- and school-age
children. Seventy-seven items met this criterion. Additional items were eliminated if their
correlations with the total factor score were less than .25. This resulted in 62 questions retained:
the Authoritative Items consisting of 27 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .91, the
Authoritarian Items consisting of 20 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .86, and the Permissive
Items consisting of 15 questions with a Cronbach alpha of .75. This 62-item measure included 19
items (31%) retained from Blocks report and 43 new items (69%).
For the second phase of the studys design we intended to determine the dimensions and
internal structures within the Authoritative Items, Authoritarian Items, and Permissive Items that
may reflect specific parenting practices. Each set of items within the three global typologies were
analyzed using principle axes factor analysis followed by oblimin rotation. Four factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the Authoritative Items accounting for 47.4%
of the variance. These factors were labeled (a) Warmth and Involvement with 11 items, (b)
Reasoning/Induction with 7 items, (c) Democratic Participation with 5 items; and (d) Good
Natured/Easy Going with 4 items. Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted
from the Authoritarian Items accounting for 46.8% of the variance. These factors were labeled
(a) Verbal Hostility with 4 items, (b) Corporal Punishment with 6 items, (c) Nonreasoning,
Punitive Strategies with 6 items, and (d) Directiveness with 4 items. Three factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the Permissive Items accounting for 40.3% of
the variance. These factors were labeled (a) Lack of Follow Through with 6 items, (b) Ignoring
Misbehavior with 4 items, and (c) Self-confidence with 5 items. Table 1 presents the means,
standard deviations, factor loadings, and descriptions of items within each global typology.
These results suggest that parenting questions consistent with Baumrinds three main
typologies can be empirically derived. Also, a number of conceptually coherent factors identified
within each typology may prove to be useful in predicting differential developmental outcomes
(cf. Darling & Steinberg, 1993). This measure can be used with both mothers and fathers who are
parents of preschool and/or school-age children. A sample of the mothers form of the instrument
is found in the Appendix. The fathers form is the same except for pronoun changes. This
instrument can also be modified for intergenerational studies. Adults report on how they were
parented by their mothers and/or fathers as children. Researchers must investigate the
correlations of the factors with both child and family outcome measures to assess the validity of
the inventory.

PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE

823

TABLE 1
Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs
Authoritative Items1
Item
3f
33f
5a
12c
35c
9e
27a
21f
1d
46c
39h

M
4.08
4.18

SD
.99
.87
.73
.77
.79
.77
.76
.73
.93
.89

Load
.72
.68
.59
.59
.58
.57
.53
.53
.57
.44
.42

58h
25h
62h
29h

3.81
3.95
3.85
3.67

.83
.84
.91
.97

.76
.76
.75
.65

53h
42a
16h

3.93
3.75
3.49

.86
.88
.99

.65
.51
.47

Factor 2 (Reasoning/Induction)
Explains the consequences of the childs behavior.
Gives child reasons why rules should be obeyed.
Emphasizes the reasons for rules.
Helps child to understand the impact of behavior by encouraging child to talk about the
consequences of (his)(her) own actions.
Explains how we feel about his/her good and bad behavior.
Talks it over and reasons with child when the child misbehaves.
Tells ch ild ou r expect ations regard ing beh avior b efore th e child engages in an activity.

55b
22h
31f
48h
60h

3.56 .88
3.40 1.05
3.30 .91
3.28 1.04
2.99 .94

.73
.64
.59
.33
.31

Factor 3 (Democratic Participation)

Takes into account childs preferences in making family plans.
Allows child to give input into family rules.
Takes childs desires in to account before aski ng the child to do something.
Encourages child to freely express (himself)(herself) even when disagreeing with parents.
Channels childs mis behavi or into a more acceptable activity.

4.29
4.21
4.41
4.23
4.28
4.10
4.03
3.83
3.79 1.02

14c
3.82
3.62
18g
7c 3.90
51b
3.95
1
Alpha = .91

Factor 1 (Warmth & Involvement)

Knows the names of childs friends.
Aware of problems or concerns about child in school.
Gives praise when child is good.
Gives comfort and understanding when child is upset.
Expresses affection by hugging, kissing, and holding child.
Show sympathy when child is hurt or frustrated.
Tells child we appreciate what the child tries or accomplishes.
Responsive to childs feelings or needs.
Encourages child to talk about the childs troubles.
Has warm and intimate times together with child.
Apologizes to child when making a mistake in parentin g.

Factor 4 (Good Natu red/Easy Going)

.80 .68
Is easy going and relaxed with child.
.71 .58
Shows patience with child.
.85 .57
Jokes and plays with child.
.76 .37
Shows resp ect for chil ds opin ions by encouraging child to e xpress them.
(27 Items), Sample = 1251
(continued on next page)

*Reverse scoring. , a Blocks Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Blocks Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlocks Q-sort Expression of Affect, d Blocks Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlocks Q-sort - Control, jBlocks Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Blocks Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlocks Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

824

TABLE 1 (Contd)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs

Authorit arian Items 2

Item
32e
13k
23e
44o

M
2.07
2.72
2.25
2.45

37i
6k
Item
43k
19k
2k
61k

1.89

10j
28j
54k
47k
26o
56k

1.55

40o
59k
17i
50k
2

1.87
M
1.54
2.19
2.05
1.30

1.58
1.59
2.20
1.93
2.18

SD
.75
.90
.79
.64

Load
.74
.72
.71
.32

.72
.75
SD
.62
.91
.82
.60

.88
.85
Load
74
51
.39
.30

.77
.81
.75
.93
.79
.88

.78
.73
.58
.48
.41
.40

.88

.69
.67
.64
.51

3.22
2.83 1.02
1.93 .86
2.50 .96

Factor 1 (Verb al Hostility)

Explodes in anger towards child.
Yells or shouts when child misbehaves.
Argues with child.
Disagrees with child.
Factor 2 (Corporal Punishment)
Uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining our child.
Spanks when our child is disobedient.
Slaps child when the child misbehaves.
Grabs child when being disobedient.
Guides child by punishment more than by reason.
Shoves child when the child is disobedient.
Factor 3 (Non-Reasoning, Punitive Strategies)
Punishes by taking privileges away from child with little if any explanations.
Punishes by putting child off somewhere alone with little if any explanations .
Uses threats as punishment with little or no justification.
When two children are fighting, disciplines children first and asks questions later.
Appears to be more concerned with own feelings than with childs feelings.
When child asks why (he)(she) has to conform, states: because I said so, or I am your parent and I
want you to.
Factor 4 (Directiveness)
Tells child what to do.
Demands that child does/do things.
Scolds and criticizes to make child improve.
Scolds or criticizes when childs behavior doesnt meet our expectations.

Alpha = .86 (20 Items), Sample = 1251

(continued on next page)

*Reverse scoring. , a Blocks Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Blocks Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlocks Q-sort Expression of Affect, d Blocks Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlocks Q-sort - Control, jBlocks Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Blocks Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlocks Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.

PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE

825

TABLE 1 (Contd)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire Constructs

Permissive Items3
Item
20n
34l
11m
41n
38n
49n

M SD Load
2.06 .79 .75
2.61 1.02 .69
2.53 .98 .65
1.96 .77 .42
2.37 .84 -.38*
2.17 .87 .32

Factor 1 (Lack of Follow Through)

States pu nishments to child a nd does n ot actuall y do them.
Threatens child with punishment more often than giving it.
Spoils child.
Gives into child when ( he)(she) causes a commotio n about something.
Carries out discipline after child misbehaves.
Bribes child with rewards to bring about compliance.

45n
15n
36n
8n

1.83
1.42
1.73
2.25

.76
.65
.68
.93

Factor 2 (Ignoring Misbehavior)

Allows child to interrupt others.
Allows child to annoy someone else.
Ignores childs misbehavior.
Withholds scolding and/or criticism even when child acts contrary to our wishes.

24g
57g
4m
52i
30g

2.17
2.16
2.16
2.45
1.55

.78 -.83*
.79 .74
.95 .50
.92 -.37*
.68 .36

.73
.69
.52
.43

Factor 3 (Self Confidence)

Appears confident about parenting abilities.
Appears unsure on how to solve childs misbehavior.
Finds it difficult to discipline child.
Sets strict well-established rules for child.
Is afraid that disciplining child for misbehavior will cause the child to not like his/her parents.

Alpha = .75 (15 Items), Sample = 1251

*Reverse scoring. , a Blocks Q-sort - Rational Guidance, b Blocks Q-sort - Encouragement of Independence, cBlocks Q-sort Expression of Affect, d Blocks Q-sort - Openness to Experience, enew Demonstration of Affect, fnew Child-centered Behavior,
g
new Parenting Confidence, hnew Authoritative Pattern, iBlocks Q-sort - Control, jBlocks Q-sort - Nonphysical Punishment,
k
new Authoritarian Pattern,l Blocks Q-sort - Inconsistency, mBlocks Q-sort - Investment in Child, nnew Permissive Pattern,
o
new Parent Centered Behavior.

826

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

REFERENCES
Baumrind, D. (1971) Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1989) Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development
today and tomorrow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 349-378.
Baumrind, D. (1991) Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan
& M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 111-163.
Block, J. H. (1965) The child-rearing practices report: a technique for evaluating parental
socialization orientations. Berkeley, CA: Univer. of California, Institute of Human
Development.
Buri, J. R. (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,
110-119.
Chao, R. K. (1994) Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding
Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 11111119.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. O., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,
1244-1257.
Greenberger, E. (1988). New measures for research on work, parenting and the socialization of
children. Unpublished manuscript, U. of California, Program in Social Ecology, Irvine,
CA.
Kochanska, B., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between mothers
self-reported and observed child-rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56-63.
Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child-rearing Practices
Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129-134.
Smetana, J. G. (1994). Parenting styles and beliefs about parental authority. In J. G. Smetana
(Ed.), Beliefs about parenting: origins and developmental implications. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 21-36.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, D. J., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE

827

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative
parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 1, 19-36.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper
Collins.
Trickett, P. K., & Susman, E. J. (1988). Parental perceptions of child-rearing practices in
physically abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 24, 270-276.

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

828

APPENDIX
Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers Form)

Make two ratings for each item; (1) rate how often your spouse exhibits this behavior with your child and
(2) how often you exhibit this behavior with your child.
SPOUSE EXHIBITS BEHAVIOR:
1 = Never
2 = Once In Awhile
3 = About Hal f of the Time
4 = Very Often
5 = Always
[He]

I
1
2
3
4
5

EXHIBIT THIS BEHAVIOR:

= Never
= Once In Awhile
= About Hal f of the Time
= Very Often
= Always

[I ]
1. [He encourages] [I encourage] our child to talk about the childs troubles.
2. [He guides] [I guide] our child by punishment more than by reason.
3. [He knows] [I know] the names of our childs friends.
4. [He finds] [I find] it difficult to discipline our child.
5. [He gives praise] [I give praise] when our child is good.
6. [He spanks] [I spank] when our child is disobedient.
7. [He jokes and plays] [I joke and play] with our child.
8. [He withholds] [I withhold] scolding and/or criticism even when our child acts contrary to our wishes.
9. [He shows] [I show] sympathy when our child is hurt or frustrated.
10. [He punishes] [I punish] by taking privileges away from our child with little if any explanations.
11. [He spoils] [I spoil] our child.
12. [He gives] [I give] comfort and understanding when our child is upset.
13. [He yells or shouts] [I yell or shout] when our child misbehaves.
14. [He is] [I am] easy going and relaxed with our child.
15. [He allows] [I allow] our child to annoy someone else.
16. [He tel ls] [I tell] child o ur expectatio ns regar ding behavio r before the child eng ages in a n activity.
17. [He scolds and criticizes] [I scold and criticize] to make our child improve.
18. [He shows] [I show] patience with our child.
19. [He grabs] [I grab] our child when he/she is being disobedient.
20. [He states ] [I state] punis hments to o ur child a nd does n ot actuall y do them.
21. [He is] [I am] responsive to our childs feelings or needs.
(continued on next page)

PARENTING PRACTICES, A MEASURE

829

APPENDIX (Contd)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers Form)

22. [He allows] [I allow] our child to give input into family rules.
23. [He argues] [I argue] with our child.
24. [He appears] [I appear] confident about parenting abilities.
25. [He gives] [I give] our child reasons why rules should be obeyed.
26. [He appears] [I appear] to be more concerned with own feelings than with our childs feelings.
27. [He tells] [I tell] our child that we appreciate what the child tries or accomplishes.
28. [He punishes] [I punish] by putting our child off somewhere alone with little if any explanations .
29. [He helps] [I help] our child to understand the impact of behavior by encouraging our child to talk about the
consequences of his/her own actions.
30.

[He is] [I am] afraid that disciplining our child for misbehavior will cause the child to not like his/her parents.

31. [He takes] [I take] our childs desir es into account be fore asking the child t o do something.
32. [He explodes] [I explode] in anger towards our child.
33. [He is] [I am] aware of problems or concerns about our child in school.
34. [He threatens] [I threaten] our child with punishment more often than actually giving it.
35. [He expresses] [I express] affection by hugging, kissing, and holding our child.
36. [He ignores] [I ignore] our childs misbehavior.
37. [He uses] [I use] physical punishment as a way of disciplining our child.
38. [He carries] [I carry] out discipline after our child misbehaves.
39. [He apologizes] [I apologize] t o our child when makin g a mistake in parenting.
40. [He tells] [I tell] our child what to do.
41. [He gives] [I give] into our child when the child causes a co mmotion about somethi ng.
42. [He talks it over and reasons] [I talk it over and reason] with our child when the child misbehaves.
43. [He slaps] [I slap] our child when the child misbehaves.
44. [He disagrees] [I disagree] with our child.
45. [He allows] [I allow] our child to interrupt others.

(continued on next page)

C. C. ROBINSON, ET AL.

830

APPENDIX (Contd)
Parenting Practices Questionnaire (Mothers Form)

46. [He has] [I have] warm and intimate times together with our child.
47. When two children are fighting, [he disciplines] [I discipline] children first and asks questions later.
48. [He encourages] [I encourage] our child to freely express (himself)(herself) even when disagreeing with
parents.
49. [He bribes] [I bribe] our child with rewards to bring about compliance.
50. [He scolds or criticizes] [I scold or criticize] when our childs behavior doesnt meet our expectations.
51. [He shows] [I show] r espect for o ur child s opinio ns by encou raging our child to e xpress them.
52. [He sets] [I set] strict well-established rules for our child.
53. [He explains] [I explain] to our child how we feel about the childs good and bad behavior.
54. [He uses] [I use] threats as punishment with little or no justification.
55. [He takes] [I take] into acc ount o ur chil ds pre ferences in making plan s for the family.
56. When our child asks why (he)(she) has to conform, [he states] [I state]: because I said so, or I am your parent
and I want you to.
57. [He appears] [I appear] unsure on how to solve our childs misbehavior.
58. [He explains] [I explain] the consequences of the childs behavior.
59. [He demands] [I demand] that our child does/do things.
60. [He cha nnels] [I chan nel] o ur chil ds misb ehavio r into a more acceptabl e activi ty.
61. [He shoves] [I shove] our child when the child is disobedient.
62. [He emphasizes] [I emphasize] the reasons for rules.