terms of “affective rejection”, the relationship would be bidirectional in the case of the mother, but unidirectional in the case of the father (affective rejection that predicts behavioral problems); the father’s expression of affection would be more important as the child ages, whereas for mothers, the affective bond is linked to the child’s adaptation from the preschool period. It is recognized that mothers are more involved with their children and spend more time with them than fathers, especially when the children are younger. Fathers, on the other hand, feel that their emotional bond with their young child may not be as strong as that of the mother, but they say that this bond will grow stronger as the child grows.
Conversely, with regard to “hostile practices”, there is a bidirectional link between fathers’ hostility and behavioral problems, whereas for mothers, this link is unidirectional; the more intense affective investment of mothers towards younger children could also explain why behavioral problems only seem to predict an increase in the use of hostile practices in a unidirectional link. Indeed, the nature of the particular mother–child emotional bond might somehow delay the use of more hostile practices toward the child.
Indeed, maternal hostility predicts an increase in children’s externalizing behavior problems in the period between 11 and 13. The strength of the emotional bond between mother and infant may explain why mothers employ fewer hostile practices when the child is younger, but when the child is older and exhibits increasing behavior problems, the protective effect of the emotional bond disappears.
Another type of interaction studied is that parents are more authoritarian with their daughters and give more autonomy to boys. Similarly, pubescent girls have more autonomy than non-pubescent girls. Finally, the sexual composition of the siblings plays a role in the difference in treatment between boys and girls. These differences are strongly dependent on parents’ adherence to gender stereotypes in their educational practices.
Various studies (Assailly 2007) have allowed us to understand the impact of parental educational styles on the child’s future: coercive styles produce anxiety in children, permissive styles produce aggression and transgression, as well as feelings of loneliness in girls.
Authoritarianism is linked to poorer moral judgment in children and lower self-esteem, smoking and illicit drug use by adolescents. Certainly, many interaction effects exist. In the example of tobacco use, the effects of authoritarianism are mediated by peer smoking; it has more negative effects on Caucasian children than on African American children, for instance.
Similarly, the correlation between authoritarianism, coercive educational styles based on physical punishment and externalized child disorders is observed in the United States in privileged environments, but not for African American families. In other words, the same family characteristic does not have the same effect depending on the family’s background. It also indicates that smacking may not be experienced in the same way: it will be seen as aggression for children from privileged backgrounds, but a norm that does not imply rejection of the parent in disadvantaged backgrounds. Conversely, the absence of physical discipline in disadvantaged environments does not necessarily indicate an advantage: it may come from an abdication of the parental role. This remains true only when physical discipline remains within a certain range; beyond that, when faced with abuse, the negative effects are the same in all settings.
The negative effects of authoritarianism have also been observed in a population of Beijing children (Assailly 2007); this authoritarianism is related to poor control (ability to inhibit habitual responses) and a disposition towards anger/ frustration. Permissiveness or laissez-faire also results in various negative effects: impulsiveness, aggressiveness and irresponsibility.
The relationship between negative parenting practices in mothers and fathers and the presence of externalizing behavior problems in children from kindergarten to grade 3 has evolved over time. While the link between these two variables is no longer in question, questions persist as to the direction of their influence and their evolution over time, especially in the case of father–child dyads. Indeed, while some authors assert that, in order to fully understand the externalized problems in young children, it is necessary to look simultaneously at their individual characteristics and the educational practices of their parents, many authors strongly suggest that results that have been validated with mothers should not be applied unilaterally to fathers. In fact, it is increasingly recognized that fathers have an influence on their child’s development that is different from and complementary to that of mothers. Moreover, both parents contribute in a different way to the development of their preschooler’s behavioral difficulties.
Involvement in delinquency, substance use and early sexuality are therefore less common in families with negotiated authority. Negotiated authority is obviously a more complex model of parenting to make work: it requires parents to be sensitive both to the child’s needs and to the persuasiveness of his or her arguments. In authoritarian families, parents make the decisions; in permissive families, children do. In negotiated authority families, decisions are negotiated.
1.10.1. Knowledge of child behaviors
While parents’ knowledge of what their children do (such as their activities, behaviors and relationships), especially during adolescence when young people spend less and less time with their parents and more and more with their peers, is a protective factor against risk-taking, delinquency or addiction, it remains to be seen how parents acquire this knowledge.
This knowledge is a two-way, two-dimensional process: the parent must make the effort to know, and the child must want to communicate information. Trust is a key element in the process, and we consider that the child’s willingness is the more essential factor of the two.
Greater parental knowledge predicts less child engagement in a given behavior, but less child engagement in a given behavior also predicts greater parental knowledge.
There are three types of sources of parental knowledge: the child’s confidence, the parent’s solicitation and finally the parent’s control. In recent years, several studies (Assailly 2007) have insisted that the first source is by far the most influential. The parents would not play such an active, direct role in the development of externalized problems and the young person’s adaptation would be more related to what they are willing to entrust.
That said, confidence is possible because parents create a climate that allows it. It is, in fact, more an indicator of the quality of the parent/child relationship than of educational and parenting behavior. Confidence and bonding are associated and reinforce each other: when we confide, the relationship improves, and vice versa. This has been observed in different sociocultural environments (e.g. in Holland, it has been observed as much in adolescents of European origin as in Moroccan, Turkish or Surinamese). This does not preclude cultural differences in the sensitivity to the detection of externalized disorders and hyperactivity (also in Holland, Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese parents detect them less than parents of Dutch origin).
Three causal relationships are possible:
– Indirect: the parents’ educational style predicts their child’s confidence, which, in turn, predicts both the parents’ knowledge of their child’s problems and, ultimately, their child’s problems.
– Direct: the educational style determines the parents’ level of knowledge, whether or not the adolescent confides in them; parents obtain this knowledge by other means (observation, solicitation of the spouse or other adults).
– Direct relationship between style and behavior: whether they know it or not, parents influence their children simply by the way they raise them.
For example, applying this model to substance use and delinquency, we see that both causal models exist. Some effects are direct, from
