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

net/publication/265025870

Effects of Parenting Style on Children Development

Article · December 2015

CITATIONS READS
43 50,450

3 authors, including:

Maharam Mamat
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
30 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Amalan Service Learning di Universiti Awam Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maharam Mamat on 16 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 World Journal of Social Sciences
Vol. 1. No. 2. May 2011 Pp. 14 - 35

Effects of Parenting Style on Children Development

Johari Talib, Zulkifli Mohamad and Maharam Mamat *

Malaysia is a developing country and government’s urbanization

policy in 1980s has encouraged migration of rural population to urban
centres, consistent with the shift of economy orientation from
agriculture base to industrial base. At present about 60% Malaysian
live in urban areas. Live demands and labour shortage in industrial
sector have forced mothers to join labour force. At present there are
about 65% mothers with children below 15 years of age working full-
time outside homes. Issues related to parenting and children’s
development becomes crucial especially in examination oriented
society like Malaysia. Using 200 families as sample this study
attempted to examine effects of parenting styles of dual-earner
families on children behaviour and school achievement. Results of the
study indicates that for mothers and fathers authoritative style have
positive effects on children behaviour and school achievement. In
contrast, the permissive and authoritarian styles have negative effects
on children behaviour and school achievement. Effects of findings on
children development are discussed.

1. Introduction

Research interest in family processes and their relation to children behavior and
school achievement has been active in the past few decades. In recent years,
due to demographic changes in the family as more mothers have to come to
participate in the workplace, research on children‟s school achievement has been
extended to examine the relation between children behavior, school achievement
and parenting style (Barnett, 1999; Lachman & Boone-James, 1997; Lerner,
1994). In addition, researchers who have examined the relationship of work
conditions such as work hours, work schedule, job demands, job supervision and
job promotion have generally found some significant associations with maternal
or parental feelings of role conflict, her parenting style and parental participation
on children‟s school work (Allen et al. 2000; Heymann, 2000). The multiple
effects of work conditions on families‟ well-being have also shown positive
association with children‟s school achievement especially among lower income
children (Miller, 2002; Huston et al., 2001; Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst,1988).
However, the relation is considered to be indirect because research has not been
able to demonstrate that maternal employment per se is linked to low or high
level of children‟s intellectual and cognitive development (Lerner, 1994; Gottfried,
Gottfried & Bathurst,1995). Maternal work conditions was expected to affect
children‟s development indirectly through its effect on parenting styles or other
_________________________

*Johari Talib. ([email protected]), Zulkifli Mohamad & Maharam Mamat currently are lecturing at
Centre for General Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

aspects of family processes (Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst, 1995; Foster & Kalil,
2005). Similar development also occurred in Malaysia. At present about 60%
Malaysian live in urban areas as result of urbanization and industrialization
processes started since 1980s. There are about 64% Malaysian mothers working
full-time outside home nowadays. At the same time demand from family
especially children and their development aspects are high. Only middle-class
and high-class families can afford to employ full-time maid at home. The low-
class families in a way have to find their own strategies to solve their problems.
In lower income families, mothers have to work full-time because their income
are fully needed to contribute the overall family income due to the high cost of
living in urban areas. Demands from children are high too because Malaysia is
an examination oriented society and many parents aspire their children‟s school
achievement to be excellent. This research focused on the effects of parenting
styles employed by parents on children behavior in classroom and their
achievement.

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Proximal Home Development Theory

The proximal home environment model is suggested by Gottfried & Gottfried

(1984, 1988, 1995). Gottfried (1995) suggests, “proximal home environment
comprises the cognitive, social-emotional and physical formulation available to
children in their family relationship (p. 141). The formulation of this model is
based on Gottfried and colleagues‟ critique of earlier research findings on the
effects of maternal employment on child development in the 1960s and 1970s.
Among the major criticisms was that much of the research was conducted based
on the assumption of direct effects between parental employment and child
cognitive development without recognition that effects were mediated by proximal
home environment. Many of these studies were conducted using psychoanalytic
approach in which mother was considered to be central importance to child‟s
psychological development. Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst (1995) in their review
about this issue stated that, “ some extensive empirical data across research
studies and review support this conclusion.” (p.139). To support their model,
Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst (1995) conducted their own longitudinal research
which focused on maternal employment, family development; and children
development from infancy through adolescence. The outcomes of this study
support the previous studies that there is no difference in outcomes between full-
time and part-time employed mothers, and the data consistently showed that
maternal employment status was not significant for child‟s development across
age, development domains and gender.

In addition, this study indicates that children of employed mothers are equivalent
in their development in the cognitive, social emotional, academic, motivational,
and behavioural domains from infancy through adolescence. Rather, regardless
of maternal employment status, this study indicates that the proximal
15
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

environment itself involves a variety of experiences provided and that parental

involvement is related to child‟s development (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1988;
Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst, 1995). Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst, further
suggest that there are other specific aspects related to proximal home
environment and they are father involvement, role satisfaction in employment
and in parenting, work related issues (work-family conflict), job flexibility,
employment schedules, and children‟s development. Following this suggestion,
this study attempts to examine parental work condition (dual-earner parents),
family structure and parenting style in relation to children behaviour in classroom
and school achievement.

2.2 Parenting Style

The importance of family processes in child development has long been

suggested by psychologists (Ogbu, 1981; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Belsky,
Steinberg & Draper, 1991). These psychologists indicate that parenting style
which includes parent-child interaction, parent-child joint activities, parents‟
involvement in children‟s education are significant in socialisation and children‟s
functioning. Kohn (1969) suggests that differences in adults‟ social realities have
implications for child rearing practices and their parenting behaviour. He
considers that conditions of life primarily in the occupational sphere are
conditions which are conducive or restrictive of the expression of self-direction in
work. Thus, different work conditions produce different outcomes among
parents. There are three ways in which white-collar occupational workers differ
from blue-collar occupational workers : (1) white-collar occupations typically
require the individual to deal more with the manipulation of ideas, symbols and
interpersonal realities whereas blue-collar occupations deal with the manipulation
of physical objects and require less interpersonal skill, (ii). White-collar
occupations involve work that is more complex, related to problem-solving,
thought, judgement, and requires greater flexibility, while individuals in blue-collar
occupation are more subject to standardisation of work, (iii) the degree of
closeness of supervision is less in white-collar than in blue-collar occupations.

These differences in turn yield different results in the value orientation of white-
collar and blue-collar workers : white-collar workers are more likely to enunciate
values dealing with self-direction such as freedom, individualisation, initiative,
creativity an self-actualisation, while blue-collar workers are more likely to stress
to conformity to external standards such as orderliness, neatness, and obedience
(Gecas & Nye, 1974; Kohn, 1969). In addition, these researchers suggested that
class-related differences in parenting values and behaviour reflect the distillation
of parents‟ own experiences, importantly experiences based on the nature of the
work they typically perform and the social competencies required to perform their
job satisfactorily, suggesting that parents‟ job experiences shape the way they
raise their children. Following Kohn‟s and colleagues research on specific effects
of work that have developmental effect on adults‟ personality and cognitive
functioning, several other researchers have taken initiative to examine the effect
16
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

of job dimensions such as job complexity and job autonomy or self-direction on

parenting style (Mortimer & Lorence, 1979; Mortimer & Borman, 1988; Mortimer,
Lorence & Kumka, 1986). In the beginning many of these studies were
concerned more with examining relations between the nature of parental work
and parenting values than with the links between parental work and parenting
practices. This imbalance has been corrected by a small number of studies in
late 1980s and early 1990s such as those by Parcel & Menaghan (1990), Roger,
Parcel & Menaghan (1991), Repetti (1992, 1994), and O‟Neill (1991). Parcel and
Menaghan (1990) and Roger, Parcel & Menaghan (1991) reported significant
correlation between job complexity of mothers work and composite measures of
parenting behaviour such as cognitive stimulation and maternal warmth.
Similarly, more substantively complex job conditions have been linked to self-
valuing, more self-directed qualities in one‟ children and in turn to encouraging to
be more autonomous and flexible (Gottfried, Gottfried & Bathurst, 1988;
Schooler, 1987). Greenberger , O‟Neil & Nagel (1994) support this finding and
suggest that adults whose work is characterised by such positive features are
more satisfied with their job experience, report less distress, and had positive
parent-child interactions (Goldberg & Easterbrook, 1988; Greenberger &
Goldberg, 1989). Work challenges exhibited both direct (positive) effect on the
quality of parents‟ explanation to their children and indirect (positive) effect on the
broad dimension of parenting. In contrast, poor job conditions such as busy day,
high work load, higher job demands (e.g time pressure and performance
expectations) are related to poor parenting behaviour. Repetti (1992, 1994)
reports that fluctuations in job stressors experienced by male air traffic controllers
related to father‟s withdrawal (e.g. fewer high involvement interactions, less
monitoring of children‟s school work) and less effort to help children with their
work. In another study of mothers with a variety of occupational status
background, heavy workloads are significantly related to less involvement and
more withdrawal from children (Repetti, 1991; O‟Neil, 1991).

The impact of parenting style on children „s school achievement can be

discussed by analysing the effects of each type of parenting style. Parenting
style represent a constellation of parental attitudes, practices and nonverbal
expressions that characterise the nature of parent-child-interaction across
diverse situations (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Most research on parenting style
derives from Baumrind‟s (1966, 1967, 1971 b) well-known research of children
and their families. Baumrind‟s conceptualisation of parenting style is based on a
typological approach to the study of family in relation to parenting style. The
typological approach focuses on the configuration of different parenting practices
and assumes that the impact of any one practice depends in part, on the
arrangement of all others; some important variations in the configuration of
parenting element (warmth, involvement, maturity demands, and supervision)
produce variations in how the child responds to parental influence. From this
perspective, parenting style is viewed as a characteristic of parents that alters the
effectiveness of family socialisation practices and the child‟s receptiveness to
such practices (Darling & Steinberg, 1993)
17
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

Baumrind (1967) identifies three qualitatively different patterns of parenting

styles: authoritarian, permissive, authoritative. Subsequently, Maccoby & Martin
(1983) transformed this typology by categorising families according to their level
of demandingness (control, supervision, maturity demands) and responsiveness
(warmth, acceptance, involvement) . “The extended parenting style typology
distinguishes between non-demanding families that vary in their level of
responsiveness. Parents characterised by low demandingness and high
responsiveness engage in an indulgent style of parenting. These parents are
tolerant, warm, and accepting. Yet, they exercise little authority, make few
demands for mature behavior, and allow considerable self-regulation by the child
or adolescent. By contrast, parents who are neither demanding nor responsive
display a neglectful or uninvolved pattern of parenting. These parents do not
monitor their children‟s behavior or support their interests. Whereas indulgent
parents are committed to their children, neglectful parents, often preoccupied
with their own problems, are disengaged from parental responsibilities “ (p.508).
In all, both neglectful and indulgent styles leave children or adolescent in
confusion, lacking guidance, or lack of role model and perhaps lacking of
direction in life.

Glasgow et al. (1997) also made a summary about parenting typology that
distinguishes between demanding families that vary in their level of
responsiveness. “Authoritarian parent are highly demanding and unresponsive.
These parents attempt to mold and control the behavior and attitudes of their
children according to a set of standards. They tend to emphasise obedience,
respect for authority, and order. Authoritarian parents also discourage verbal
give-and-take with children, expecting rules to be followed without further
explanation” (p.508). The impact of this parenting behaviour on children‟s
development has been documented in many studies. Poor parenting style
characterised as rejecting, avoidant, withdrawal, lower-tolerance, coercive and
punitive predict children‟s behaviour problems such as anti-social, external
disorder, immaturity, anxiety, withdrawal and drug abuse (Patterson, 1983;
Capaldi, Crossby & Stoolmiller, 1996; Capaldi & Patterson, 1991). In addition,
research studies indicate that poor parenting practices are also related to lower
school achievement : lack of parental control, and excessive levels of parental
control may both lead to improper social attitudes and behaviour ranging from
truancy to drug abuse and lower school achievement suggesting that harsh and
indulgent parenting styles may result in children becoming anti-social, aggressive
and developing a maladaptive style of processing social information ( Rumberger
et al., 1990; Weiss et al. 1992). Studies report show that children from
authoritarian families get into less trouble than children from permissive or
uninvolved parents. Number of children from authoritarian families involved in
drug and alcohol use, risky behaviour like driving car without a seat belt,
disruptive and aggressive are less as compared to children from permissive
families ( Ginsburg et al 2004; Lamborn et al. 1991, Sternberg et al, 1996;
Sternberg at al. 2006). However, consistent research reports indicate that
children from authoritarian families may not be as well-behaved as children from
18
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

authoritative families. It seems that children from authoritarian families do not

fully internalise the discipline aspects deployed by their parents (Querido et al.
2002; Underwood et al. 2009). Further, adolescents with authoritarian parents
were the least likely to feel socially accepted by their peers and they are also
rated as less self-reliant (Lamborn at al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994), less
resourceful (Turkel & Tzer, 2008), low competence (Martinez et al. 2007; Garcia
& Garcia, 2009), less helpful and less popular ( Dekovic & Jannsens, 1992;
Jannsens & Dekovic, 1997); have low self-esteem and experience
depersonalization (Martinez & Garcia, 2007; Woldradt et al. 2003). It seems that
children from authoritarian families simply follow rules set up by their parents ,
but when their parents figures are not available they do not know how to react or
give responses to the new environment, such as in classroom.

The third style of parenting as suggested by Baumrind (1971 ) is authoritative

style and this is found to be the most effective parenting style in relation to school
achievement. “Authoritative parenting style maintains an effective balance
between high levels of demandingness and responsiveness. These parents
establish and firmly enforce rules and standards for their children‟s behaviour.
They consistently monitor conduct and use non-punitive method or discipline
when rules are violated. Socially responsible mature behaviour is expected and
reinforced. Authoritative parents are also warm and supportive. They encourage
bidirectional communication, validate the child‟s individual point of view, and
recognise the rights of both parents and children” (Glasgow et al., 1997, p.508).
The warm and affectionate relationship between children and parents foster
cognitive growth in children ( Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Baumrind, 1973, 1979).
The influence of authoritative parenting also does not diminish during
adolescence, adolescents who are reared in an authoritative environment “
consistently score higher on measures of psychological competence and school
achievement and lower on measures of internal distress, problem behaviour,
than do adolescents from non-authoritative families” (Glasgow et al., 1997,
p.508). Authoritative parenting style therefore create warm, loving and mutual
understanding in the family and foster stable children‟s behaviour and
personality. Glasgow et al. (1997), further in their summary indicate that, “
Although there are ethnic and cultural variations in the impact of parenting style
(e.g. Asian-American from authoritarian families score higher than non
authoritarian) this empirical pattern appears to transcend gender, family
structure, age and social class divisions” (p.508). Chao (2001) has argued that
the Chinese version of authoritarian parenting is fundamentally different. Unlike
Western authoritarian parents, Chinese authoritarian parents have closer
relationships to their children, and closeness is a predictor of higher school
achievement.

The most disadvantaged children are those who are reared by neglectful parents.
They show the lowest level of adjustment among the three types of parenting. At
adolescence levels, “these adolescents are the most disadvantaged with respect
to measures of social competence, academic achievement, and psychological
19
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

adjustment” (Glasgow et al., 1997, p.508). Although research studies have

shown significant relationships between work, parenting style and school
achievement, these relationships are moderated by three factors : parental
education attainment, occupational status, family income. McLoyd (1990) who
reviewed the impact of economic hardship on African-American families and
children concluded that poverty, economic hardship and lower-class status are
related to poor parenting style, child abuse among parents and less confidence,
low self-esteem and physical unattractiveness among children. The economic
and emotional distress experienced by lower-class parents cause them to be less
supportive and less sensitive. These parents use power assertive techniques in
disciplinary encounters, value obedience more, are less likely to use reasoning
and more likely to use physical punishment as means of controlling the child
(Laosa, 1908; Felner et al., 1995). Engle (1991) found that social and economic
disadvantage affect the way parents shape proximal development experiences
and mental development of adolescents. This study indicates that there are two
major factors affecting the proximal environmental experience : parents‟
educational attainment and occupational status. Adolescents from homes in
which adults were employed in low-income unskilled occupations were found to
have lower levels of achievement than those from homes in which adults were in
higher paying occupations (Kalmijn, 1995; Mac Leod, 1987). Studies on the
relation between parenting behaviour and children‟s school achievement
conducted in a cross national study in Thailand (Intasuwan, 1985), Indonesia
(Din and Achir, 1978), India (Jain and Mishra, 1994 ), China (Chen et al.1997),
and Taiwan (Pong et al. 2010) revealed the same outcomes.

Parenting style provide a robust indicator of parenting functioning that predicts

child well-being across a wide spectrum of environments and across diverse
communities of children. Both parental responsiveness and parental
demandingness are important components of good parenting. 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. The
outcomes of each parenting style on child development are consistent in many
different environment throughout of the world (i.e Chen et al. 1997; Pong et al.
2010; Jain & Mishra, 1994). The present study highlights two major questions: (i)
Do parenting styles differ across mothers and fathers and gender (male/female)
of target children, and (ii) Do parenting styles affect children behaviour and
school achievement? Similar to the previous studies on parenting styles, the
present study predicts that both mothers and fathers employ better parenting
style (authoritative) to their daughters as compare to their sons. Furthermore, all
variables tested in the study affects children behaviour and school achievement:
positively and negatively.

20
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

3. Methodology

3.1 Sample of the Study

This study involved 200 intact families which comprised 200 full-time working
mothers and 200 full-time working fathers. The study‟s sample comprised 200
Malay families, 200 children and 45 class teachers. The study only focused on
Malay dual earners families because majority of them are new in the urban
environment as compared another major ethnic in urban Malaysia, the Chinese
group. This is the major limitation of this study. Moreover, the study only involved
200 Malay families as sample and only selected from one state out of 14 states
in Malaysia. However, the state chosen was appropriate because it reflects the
Malaysian society as a whole : comprises three major ethnics, Malay, Chinese
and Indian. Future research is recommended using bigger sample focused on
comparison between ethnics such as between Malay and Chinese families.
Sample background for this study is divided into four parts : family background,
fathers‟ and mothers‟ background, children‟s background and teachers‟
background. Sample of this study is selected using stratified random selection
procedure based on four criteria: (i) mother and father of each family are working
full-time, (ii) each family has at least two children, one of them is the target child
for the research, (iii) families are chosen from two lower- and middle class
background, and (iv) children sample are divided into two groups : 50 % male
and 50% female. Sample size with 200 families (comprises mothers, fathers and
children) is appropriate for the data analysis approach employ for this study.

3.2 Family Demographic Background

Of the 200 families, 90.5 per cent (181) had nuclear family background and only
9.5 per cent (19) had extended family background. It seemed that some elderly
parents of Malay families still live in the rural areas and refused to follow their
children to the urban centres. Overall, percentage of nuclear family for the
sample was higher than the national percentage that was 68 per cent (Malaysia,
2004) The mean of number of children per family in this study is 3.9, about 31.5
per cent (63) of families had 4 children, 21 per cent (42) had three, 15.5 per cent
(31) had 2 children and 10. 5 per cent (21) had had more than 7 children. For the
purpose of this study, only families with more than one children were selected as
sample. Of the 200 families in the sample, 5 per cent (10) had monthly income
of RM1600 or less and the balance of that number ( 95 per cent = 190) were
families with monthly income between RM 1601-RM6000. Overall, many families
had income between RM2500- RM6000. With that income about 47 per cent of
families had live in maid or family helper.

3.3 Mothers

There were 200 working mothers and fathers in the study. Mean of mother‟s
age in the study was 39 years and had various educational and occupational
21
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

background. About 45% (90) of mothers completed 9 years of education (lower

secondary level), 24.5% (49) completed secondary level (SPM= Year 11) and
only 15% (30) received tertiary education at diploma and degree levels. With
the secondary school education background, many of the mothers secured job
as production operator in the factories , 32.5% (65), the lowest job status in the
given ranking. The rest of them work in other fields : repairs (16.5% = 33),
administration support (12% = 24) and semi-professional (14% = 28). Most
mothers work 44 hours per week and only 16.5%(33) had non-day working shift.

22
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat
Table 1 : Mean, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Demographic
Variables (Mothers )
Variables Mean SD Ranges
Mothers n=200
Age of mothers 39 .82 29-49 years
Mothers‟ educational attainment 2.5 (between Below Year
Below Form3=38% (76) Year 9-Year 1.3 9– Bachelor
Completed Form 3=21%(43) 11) degree
Completed Form 5=30%(60) Same
Completed Form 6=5%(10)
2-3 years diploma=3%(6)
BA/BS= 2.5%(5)
Mothers‟ occupational status 4.9 1.9 Production
Professional = 2.5%(5) (semi operator to
Professional junior=13.5%(27) professional) professional
Semi professional=14%(28) 1.96
Marketing promoter, sales=18%(28)
Administration support=12%(24)
Mechanic and repair=16.5%(33)
Production operator=32.5%(65)
Mothers‟ monthly income 1.44 RM500-
Less than RM500=15.5% RM1250 RM3000
RM500-RM1000=45%(90)
RM1000-RM1500=24.5%(49)
RM500-RM2000=10%(20)
RM2000-RM2500=2.5%(5)

RM2500 and above=2.5%(5)

Mothers‟ work hours (weekly) 42 .86 30-49 hours

47 .83 30-49 hours
Mothers‟ work temp 1.83 .37
Non-day shift = 16.5% (33)
No shift =83.5%
Father‟s work tempo 1.83 .37
Non-day shift = 16.4% (33)
No Shift = 83.5% (167)

3.4 Fathers

Malay fathers in the sample had age slightly older than wives, mean of the
fathers age was 40. Overall fathers had better education than mothers, 31.5 %
(63) of them received diploma and degree levels, 45%(90) completed lower
secondary, and 21% (42) completed secondary education. With such education
background, about 25.5% (51) of them worked as production operator, 16% (32)

23
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

as mechanic and repairers, 14.5% (19) as administration supports and 10.5% as

marketing and sales officers. Only 33.5% (67) working as semi-professional staff
and professional executives. Overall, mean of the fathers‟ income was between
RM1500-RM2000. Range of income for fathers was quite high between RM 550
(per month) to RM2500 (per month). There were about 10.5% (21) of fathers
received monthly salary around RM500. The mean of working hours for fathers
was 47 hours per week, slightly higher than mothers, which was 42 hours.
Similar to mothers, about 16.5% (33 )of fathers had non-day working shift.

24
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat
Table 2 : Mean, Standard Deviations and ranges for Demographic Variables
(Fathers )
Variables Mean SD Ranges
Fathers n=2000
Age of fathers 40 1.1 30-49 years
Fathers‟ educational attainment 3.3 (between Below Year
Below Form3=11.5%(23) Form 5-Form6 1.3 9– Bachelor
Completed Form 3=16.5%(33) ) degree
Completed Form 5=39%(78) Same
Completed Form 6=9.5%(19)
2-3 years diploma=7.5%(15)
BA/BS= 16(32)
Fathers‟ occupational status 4.6 1.9 Production
Professional = 3%(6) (semi operator to
Profession junior=19.5%(39) professional) professional
Semi professional=11%(22) 1.96
Marketing promoter, sales=10.5%(21)
Administration support=14.5%(19)
Mechanic and repair=16%(32)
Production operator=25.5%(51)
Fathers‟ monthly income 1.3 RM500-
Less than RM500=2.5%(5) RM1500 RM3000
RM500-RM1000=45%(90)
RM1000-RM1500=21%(42)
RM500-RM2000=21.5%(43)
RM2000-RM2500=2%(4)

RM2500 and above=8%(16)

Fathers‟ work hours (weekly) 47 .83 30-49 hours

Fathers‟ work tempo 1.83 .37

Non-day shift = 16.5% (33)
No shift =83.5%
Father‟s work tempo 1.83 .37
Non-day shift = 16.4% (33)
No Shift = 83.5% (167)

3.5 Children

There were altogether 200 children in the study, 50 per cent (100) of them were
males and 50% were females. About 29.5% (59) of the children were 7 years of
age, 34.5 % (69) 8 years, and 36% (72) were nine years. Because children‟s age
go consistently with class in school, about 29.5 per cent (59) of the children were
in Grade 1, 30 per cent (60) in Grade 2 and 38% (76) in Grade 3. Children‟s

25
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

background was provided with their school achievement based on there major
subjects : Reading (Mean =80.4 %, SD= 15.37), Malay Language (Mean 80.70
per cent, SD = 16.30) and Mathematics (Mean 77.20%, SD= 19.56). All three
subjects‟ scores were based on mean of four times classroom tests developed
by school teachers based on School Based Test Format.

3.6 Teachers

The present study examined relationships between parents‟ work conditions,

parenting styles and children‟s school achievement. The study therefore
involved school and teachers. Children of this study were selected from 15
primary schools in Seremban, the state capital of Negeri Sembilan. There were
45 teachers involved in the study. Their roles were helping researcher to gather
children‟s information, distributing research‟s questionnaire and giving children
assessment based on three compulsory subjects in the Malaysian primary school
curriculum : Malay Language, Mathematics, Reading. Out of 45 teachers
selected, 25 were females and 20 were males and had mean of age of 40 years.
Most of them had teaching experience more than 10 years and graduated from
Teachers Training College in Malaysia.

3.7 Research’s Instruments

There were eleven types of measures used in the study taken or adapted from
previous researchers. All measures were tested again at the first stage of the
study in the pilot study using 80 families. Sample for the pilot study involved 80
families and they were not included in the main study. Overall the cronbach alpha
coefficients of all measures were between 0.65 to 0.85 : Work Conditions
comprises three parts taken or adapted from Smith,Kendall and Hulin (1969) and
modified by Roznowski (1980) = Job Demand 0.85; Job Supervision 0.81, Job
Promotion 0.85; Parenting Styles taken or adapted from Lamborn et al (1991) =
Authoritarian 0.65, Permissive 0.62, Authoritative 0.68; Parental Monitoring
adapted from Block (1965) and Milne et al.(1986) = 0.81; and Children‟s
Behaviour Checklist taken from Fincham, Hakoda and Sanders(1989) =0.86.

3.8 Procedures

The study was conducted following a survey method which involved parents‟
responses to questionnaires. Research study was conducted in one year
between August 2008 to August 2009. The first step of the procedures started
with school visit. Researcher and teachers identified appropriate children and
families to be sample for the study (dual earner family background, had at least
two children, mixed socio-economic status background). Step 2 involved
researcher distributing questionnaires through school children. In some cases
researcher visited families and assisted parents who were not sure how to give
response. Mothers and fathers‟ responses were measured separately because
the study aimed to investigate the differences of father and mother work
26
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

conditions, parenting style and parental involvement on children‟s school

achievement. While different procedures were employed with these participants,
the enhanced validity of data gathered was advanced as the justification for
these variations.

4. Research Findings

4.1 Differences in Parenting Styles by Parent and Target Child Sex

To determine whether parenting styles differed across mothers and fathers and
sex of the target child a simple frequency and percentage were performed. In this
analysis, parent (mother versus father) were compared. The distribution of
means and standard deviation for scores on the Authoritarian, Authoritative and
Permissive subscales by parent and child sex are shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Means (Ms), Standard Deviations (SDs), and Cell Numbers (Ns)
for Parenting Style Variables by Parent.

Measure Parent Child N M SD

Sex
Authoritarian Fathers Male 100 23.84 6.13
Female 100 22.55 5.19
Mothers Male 100 24.43 5.63
Female 100 22.46 5.41
Authoritative Fathers Male 100 30.35 4.07
Female 100 31.34 4.46
Mothers Male 100 30.76 4.94
Female 100 31.24 4.53
Permissive Fathers Male 100 9.56 3.29
Female 100 9.52 3.31
Mothers Male 100 10.14 3.80
Female 100 9.69 3.25

Table 1.1 indicates that Malay fathers employed more authoritarian style to their
boys (m=23.84), as compared to their daughters (m=22.55). Similarly, mothers
also employed more authoritarian style to their sons and less authoritarian to
their girls. The same effects also obvious in authoritative style. For both mothers
and fathers, effects of authoritative style are higher on girls (m=31.24, m=31.34)
27
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

as compared to boys (m=30.35, m=30.76). Effects of permissive style show

consistent outcomes, both mothers and fathers are more permissive to boys
(m=9.56, m=10.14), as compared to girls (m=9.52, m=9.69). In sum, both Malay
mothers and fathers employed more authoritarian style to their boys, more
authoritative to their girls and more permissive to their boys.

4.2 Effects on Parenting Styles

4.2.1 Effects on Mothers and Father

Table 1.2 is the correlation matrix for mothers. There are three suggested
variable to affects all three types of parenting styles : child sex, socio-economic
status (SES), and work conditions. SES variable is a combination of there sub-
variable and they are academic attainment, job status and monthly income. All
three variable had significant negative effects on authoritarian (child sex=-0.18,
SES =-0.38, and work conditions=0-.36.). These results indicates that child sex
affect the degree of mothers‟ authoritarianism, lower SES are related to higher
authoritarian style and poor job conditions predict higher authoritarian among
mothers. Table 1.3 illustrated the correlation of all variables in the study. For
fathers authoritarian is correlated negatively to child sex ( -0.18), SES (-.032)
and work conditions (-0.28). The correlation are all significant, predict that there
are differences in parenting style particularly authoritarian style employed by
fathers to daughters and sons, higher authoritarian style is related to lower SES
and also lower job conditions.

28
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat
Table 1.2 : Correlation Matrix for Mothers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.Child Sex 1
2. SES -0.05 1
3. Work Conditions 0.12 0.35 1
4. Authoritarian -0.18 -0.38 -0.36 1
5. Permissive -0.06 -0.11 -0.20 0.24 1
6. Authoritative 0.05 0.31 0.23 -0.42 -0.23 1
7. School Achievement 0.22 0.40 0.44 -0.50 -0.07 0.40 1
8. Children Behaviour 0.21 0.24 0.37 -0.32 -0.03 0.24 0.61 1.00

Table 1.3 : Correlation Matrix for Fathers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Child Sex 1
2. SES -0.05 1.00
3. Work Conditions 0.10 0.34 1.00
4. Authoritarian -0.11 -0.32 -0.28 1.00
5. Permissive -0.01 -0.14 -0.28 0.30 1.00
6. Authoritative 0.12 0.13 0.29 -0.45 -0.27 1.00
7. School Achievement 0.22 0.40 -0.26 -0.47 -0.17 0.36 1.00
8. Children Behaviour 0.21 0.24 0.18 -0.32 -0.15 0.23 0.61 1.00

4.2.2. Effects on Children Behavior and School Achievement

Mothers
Effects of all variables on children behavior and school achievement are
illustrated in Table 1.3 for mothers. For mothers, children behavior is determined
by their sex 0.21, SES 0.24, work conditions 0.37, authoritarian -0.32,
permissive -0.03, and authoritative 0.24. In all, mothers‟ work conditions has
strong correlation with children behavior, indicates that better work conditions
predicted positive children behavior. The authoritative style also has significant
correlation with children behavior indicating that authoritative style encourages
children to be confident in classroom or have strong learned mastery behavior.

For mothers, children school achievement has significant correlation with their
sex or gender 0.22, SES 0.40, work conditions 0.37, authoritative 0.40,
authoritarian -0.32, and permissive -0.03. Mothers‟ SES background and
authoritative style and works conditions appeared to be three major determinants
of children behavior. On the other hand, authoritarian style also plays significant
role to determine children behavior, but it is negative one, indicating higher
degree of authoritarianism affects children behavior negatively or in particular
higher level of learned helpless behavior. In all both children behavior and school
achievement are positively influenced by child sex, SES, authoritative and
negatively by mothers authoritarian style.
29
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

Fathers
Effects of all variable on children behavior and school achievement is illustrated
in Table 1.3. For Malay fathers, children behavior is influenced by child sex 0.21,
SES 0.24, work conditions 0.18, authoritarian -0.32, permissive -0.15,
authoritative 0.23 and similar to mothers, children behavior has strongest effect
on achievement, 0.61.. The correlation between suggested variables with
children behavior are significant and most obvious one is authoritarian which is
negative -0.32 indicating higher authoritarian style affect children behavior
negatively. Fathers‟ effect of authoritarian on children behavior is similar with
mothers‟ effects. Effects of permissive style of fathers‟ on children behaviour ( -
0.15) is higher than mothers‟ effects ( -0.03), indicating that more fathers
employed permissive style as compared to mothers.

Children‟s school achievement is influenced by all suggested factors but different

in value. Strongest one is children behavior 0.61, authoritarian -0.47 followed by
SES 0.40, authoritative 0.36, fathers‟ work conditions 0.26 and permissive -
0.17. Effects of authoritarian, SES and permissive are higher than mothers‟
effects on the same variables indicating that effects of fathers‟ authoritarian and
SES are stronger than mothers‟ and similar phenomenon also obvious on effects
on children behavior. Effects of fathers‟ permissiveness on school achievement is
also higher.

5. Discussion

Parenting styles is all about how to raise children. It includes biological,

emotional, spiritual and social support by parents. The long-term outcomes of
parenting style are actually results of parents aspiration on idealism of
socialization aims determined by parents. In general it could be that many
parents have high aspiration on their children, wanting everything good happen
to them but other factors also influenced the way they make themselves
responsible or irresponsible such as cultural factor and SES. The present
research shows that both mothers and fathers employed authoritative style
stronger to daughters and lower to their sons and at the same time employed
more authoritarian style to their boys and less authoritarian to their daughters.
Both mothers and fathers do not realize that in a way they are giving better
attention to their daughters as compared to their sons. The same phenomenon
also found by other researchers (e.g Hoffman, 1976, 1988, Gottfried, Gottfried &
Bathurst, 1988). Working mothers give more attention to their girls rather than
boys. Mothers also spending time more with girls than boys when not working. It
seems that parents especially mothers try to compensate missing hour when
working more with girls than boys. For better long-term outcomes, parents should
give equal attention to all children regardless their gender.

Parenting styles are determined by parents‟ SES background, working

conditions and child sex. More educated and parents who belong to middle-
30
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

class background employed better and effective parenting style or authoritative

style. In contrast, less educated parents or lower-income parents employed
harsh or authoritarian style stronger to their children as compared to more
advantaged children who come from better family and home background. Similar
finding are recorded by other researchers (eg. McLoyd 1990, Menaghan &
Bathurst 1990; Foster & Kalil 2005); and Lareau 1989). Poor work conditions
such as busy day, high work load, higher job demands (e.g time pressure and
performance expectations) are related to poor parenting behaviour. For
example, Repetti (1992, 1994) reports that fluctuations in job stressors
experienced by male air traffic controllers related to father‟s withdrawal (e.g.
fewer high involvement interactions, less monitoring of children‟s school work)
and less effort to help children with their work. Heavy workloads by mothers are
significantly related to less involvement and more withdrawal from children
(Repetti, 1991; O‟Neil, 1991). Although this behaviour may be an adaptive
response to allow parents who experience stress as result of job conditions to
regain their normal level of emotional and psychological functioning, stressful
conditions of work may prompt withdrawal, hostile or punitive parent-child
interactions (Hoffman, 1984; Bolger , de Longis, Kessler, and Wethington, 1989;
Lerner and Galambos, 1985).

Direct effects of parenting styles on children behavior and school achievement

are clearly shown in the present study. Two types of parenting styles that
appeared to be significant in relation to children behavior and school
achievement are authoritarian and authoritative. Mothers‟ and fathers‟ effects are
quite similar, positive effects for authoritative and negative effects for
authoritarian. However, effects of fathers‟ authoritarian style are stronger than
mothers‟ on both children behavior and school achievement indicating that
fathers‟ overall are more authoritarian than mothers. Different emphasis on child
sex in terms of parenting styles given different outcomes to children behavior and
school achievement among children in the study. Since girls are given better
attention through better parenting style (authoritative), they performed better in
classroom than boys. Whether parents realize or not about this trend this issue
needs to be investigated when looking at the reasons why girls performed better
in public examinations in Malaysia and girls later on becomes majority in the
entire public universities in Malaysia. Overall the present research findings on
effects of parenting styles on children behavior and school achievement are
similar to other findings conducted elsewhere in the world as discussed.

6. Conclusion

The present research study emphasizes its scope on effects of parenting styles
of working parents on children development. Two aspects of development
investigated are children behavior and cognitive development or school
achievement. Three types of parenting styles tested are based on Baumrind‟s
(1967) parenting styles‟ typology : authoritarian, authoritative and permissive. In
general fathers and mothers employed better parenting style (authoritative) to
31
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

girls as compared to boys. Fathers and mothers also are found to be more
authoritarian to their boys. Similar to other research conducted in other countries
such as America and Europe, authoritarian style gives negative effects on
children behavior to and school achievement and on the other hand, authoritative
style gives positive effects on children development. Since girls are given better
attention by both mothers and fathers, they behave well in classroom and have
higher or better achievement.

References

Allen, SM & Hawkin, AJ 1999, „Maternal gatekeeping : Mothers‟ beliefs and

behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work‟, Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 199-212.
Barnett, M, Harris, M & Chasin, J 1991, „Early lexical development and maternal
speech. A comparison of children‟s initial and subsequent uses of words‟,
Journal of Child Language, 18, 21-40.
Baumrind, D 1966, „Effects of authoritative on child behavior‟, Child
Development, 37, 887-907.
Baumrind, D 1967, „Child-care practices antecedings: Three patterns of
preschool behavior‟, Genetic Psychology, Monograph, 75, 43-88.
Baumrind, D 1971, „Current patterns of parental authority‟, Developmental
Psychology, 24, 225-239.
Belsky, J Steinberg, L & Draper, P 1991, „The work-family interface and marital
change across the transition to parenthood‟, Journal of Family Issues, 6,
205-220.
Block, J 1978, „The Q-Sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric
research’, Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.
Bolger,N, de Longis, A, Kessler, RC & Wethington, E 1989, „Effects of daily
stress on health and mood. Psychological and social resources as
mediators‟, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.
Bronfenbrenner, U 1979, „The ecology of the family as a context of human
development. Research perspective‟, Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-
724.
Capaldi, DM, Crosby, L & Stoolmiller, M 1996, „Predicting the timing of first
sexual intercourse for at-risk adolescents males‟, Child Development, 67,
344-359.
Capaldi, DM & Patterson, GR 1991, „Relations of transitions to boys‟ adjustment,
(1) A linear hypothesis, (2) Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled
parent‟, Developmental Psychology, 27, 489-504.
Chen, X, Dong Q & Zhou, H 1997, „Authoritative and authoritarian parenting
practices and social and school performance in Chinese children‟,
International Journal of Behavioral Management, 21 (14), 855-873.
Chao, R 1994, „Beyond parental control, authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through performance in Chinese
Children‟, Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.

32
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

Din, HE & Achir, JA 1978, „The effect of mother attitude towards the development
of their children‟s achievement, motivation and its relation with school
achievement‟, Proceedings of the first Asian Workshop for child and
adolescent development . Jakarta : University of Indonesia.
Engle, PL 1991, „Maternal work and child-care strategies in peri-urban
Guatemala: National effects’, Child Development, 62, 930-953.
Fincham,FD, Hakoda, A & Sanders Jr., R 1989, „Learned helplessness. A test
anxiety and academic achievement. A longitudinal analysis‟, Child
Development, 60, 138-145.
Foster, EM & Kalil, A 2005, „Developmental Psychology and public policy :
progress and prospects „, Developmental Psychology, 41, 827-932.
Darling, N & Steinberg, L 1993, „Parenting style as context. An integrative model‟,
Developmental Psychology, 113, 487-496.
Glasgow, KL, Dornbusch, SM, Troyer, L & Ritter, PL 1997, „Parenting styles,
adolescents‟ attributions and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous
high school‟, Child Development, 68, 507-529.
Gottfried, AE, Gottfried, AW & Bathurst, K 1988, „Maternal employment, family
environment and children‟s development: Infancy through the school years‟,
In A.E Gottfried & A.W Gottfried (Eds.), Maternal employment and children’s
development: Longitudinal research, Plenum: NY.
Gottfried, AE & Gottfried, AW.1994, „Maternal and dual-earner employment,
status and parenting‟, In AE Gottfried & AW Gottfried (Ed.), Redefining
families: Implications for children’s development, Plenum:NY.
Gottfried, AE, Gottfried, AW & Bathurst, K 1995, „Maternal and dual-earner
employment, status and parenting‟, in MH Bornstein, Handbook of
Parenting, Vol. 2, Biology and Ecology of Parenting, Erlbaum : NJ.
Greenberger, E, O‟Neill, R & Nagel, SK 1994, „Linking workplace and
homeplace. Relations between the nature of adults‟ work and their
parenting behaviors‟, Developmental Psychology, 30, 990-102.
Greenberger, E & Goldberg, WA 1989, „Work , parenting and the socialization of
children‟, Developmental Psychology, 25, 22-35.
Ginsburg, KR, Durbin, DR, Garcia-Espana, JF, Kalicka EA & Winston, FK 2009,
„Associations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety related
behaviors and attitudes‟, Pediatrics, 124(4), 1040-1051.
Goldberg, WA & Easterbrooks, MA 1998, „Maternal employment when children
are toddlers and kindergartener‟, in A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried (ed.),
Maternal Employment and Children’s Development. Longitudinal Research,
Plenum: NY.
Heymann, J 2000, The widening gap: Why America’s working families are in
jeopardy, and what can be done about it. New York, 18, 308-321.
Hoffman, LW 1984. „Work, family and socialization of the child‟, in RD Parke
(Ed.) Review of Child Development Research : Vol. 7, The Family.:
University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Intasuwan, P 1985. „School achievement‟, in C Svannathat , D Bhantumnavin, L
Bhuapirom and DM Keats (ed.), Handbook of Asian child development and

33
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat
childrearing practices, Bangkok Behavioral Science Research Institute :
Srinakharinwirot University.
Jain, S & Mishra, P 1994. „Chilrearing practices and cognitive ability. A study of
adolescents‟. Psychologia, 37, 111-115, Kyoto.
Kalmijn, M 1994. „Mothers‟ occupational status and children schooling‟, American
Sociological Review, 59, 257-275.
Kohn, MC 1969. Class and conformity: A study in values, University of Chicago
Press: Chicago
Lachman, ME, & Boone-James, J (Eds) 1997. Charting the course of middle
development : An overview, in ME Lachman & J Boone-James (Eds.),
Multiple paths of midlife development (p 1-20) University of Chicago Press:
Chicago
Lamborn, SD, & Mounts,NS 1991. „Patterns of competence and adjustment
among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful
families‟, Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Lamb, ME, Hwang, CP, Bookstein, FL, Borbeg, A, Hult, G & Fordi, M 1988.
„Determinants of social competence in Sweedish preschoolers‟.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 58-70.
Laosa, LM 1980, „Maternal teaching strategies and cognitive styles in Chicano
and Anglo-American families. The influence of culture and education on
maternal behavior‟. Child Development, 51, 759-765.
Lareau, A 1989, Home adventure. Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education. Plenum : NY.
Lerner, JV 1994, Working mothers and their families. Sage Pub. Series: CA,
Thousand Oaks.
Lerner, JV & Galambos, NL 1985, „Maternal role satisfaction , mother-child
interaction and a child temperament, A process model‟, Developmental
Psychology, 21, 1157-1167.
Maccoby, E, & Martin, JA 1983, „Socialization in the context of family. Parent-
child interaction‟, in PH Mussen and EM Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology. Socialisation, Personality, and Social Development.
Wiley: NY.
Martinez, I, Garcia, JF, & Yubero, S 2007.‟Parenting styles and adolescents‟
self-esteem in Brazil‟, Psychology Rep. 2007 Jun; 100(3 Pt 1) : 731-45.
Mortimer, JT & Borman, KM 1988, Work experience and psychological
development throughout the life span, Westview: Boulder, CO.
Mortimer, JT & Lorence, J 1979, „Work experience and occupational value
socialisation. A longitudinal study‟ American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1361-
1385.
Mortimer, JT, Lorence, J & Kumka, DS 1986, „Work, family, and personality.
Transition to adulthood’. Norwood, Ablex: NJ.
O‟Neill, R 1991, „Maternal occupational experiences and psychological well-being
influences of parental achievement, facilitation and children‟s academic
achievement‟, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Irvine.

34
 Talib, Mohamad & Mamat

Parcel, TL & Menaghan, EG 1990, „Maternal working conditions and child verbal
facility. Studying the intergenarational transmission of inequality from
mothers to young children‟, Social Psychology Quaterly, 53, 132-147.
Patterson, GR 1983, „Stress. A change for family process‟, in N Garmezy and M
Rutter (Ed.), Stress, coping and development in children, Mc Graw Hill: NY.
Pong, S, Johnston, J & Chen, V 2010, „Authoritarian parenting and Asian
adolescent school performance: Insights from the US and Taiwan‟.
International Journal of Behavior Development, 34 (1), 62-72.
Querido, JG, Warner, TD, & Eyberg, SM 2002, „Parenting styles and child
behavior in African American families of preschool children‟, Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 3(2), 272-277.
Repetti, RC 1992, „Mothers also withdraw from parent-child interaction as a
short-term response to increased load at work‟, Paper presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle,
WA.
Rapetti, RC 1994, „Short-term and long-term processes linking job stressors to
father-child interaction‟, Social Development, 3, 1-5.
Roger, SL, Parcel, TL & Menaghan EC 1991, „The effects of maternal working
conditions and mastery on child behavior problems. Studying the
intergenerational transmission of social control‟, Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 32, 145-164.
Roznowski, M 1989, „Examination of measurement properties of Job Descriptive
Index with experimental items‟, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 805-814.
Rumberger, RW, Ghatak, R, Poulos, G, Ritter, PL & Dornbusch, SM. 1990,
„Family influence on dropout behavior in one California high school‟,
Sociology of Education, 63, 290-289.
Schooler, C 1987, „Psychological effects of complex environment during life
span. A review and theory‟, in C Schooler and K. Warner Schaie (Ed.),
Cognition functioning and social structure the life course. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Smith, PC, Kendal, Ll & Hulin, LL 1969, The measurement of satisfaction in work
achievement. Rand Mc Nally: Chicago
Sternberg, L, Darling, N. & Fletcher, AC 1995, „Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecology perspective‟, American Psychologist, 47 (6), 723-
729.
Underwood, MK, Chen, H, & Miles, JNV 2009. „Affect and maternal parenting as
predictors of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in Chinese children‟,
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 158-166.
Weiss, LH & Schwarz, JC 1992, „The relationship between parenting types and
older adolescents personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and
substance use‟. Child Development 67 (5), 2101-2114.
Woldradt,U, Hempel, S & Miles, JNV 2003, „Perceived parenting styles
depersonalization anger/frustration: relation to parenting styles and
children‟s social functioning‟, Developmental Psychology, 2004, 40 (3), 352-
366.

35

View publication stats