Parenting Styles in a Cultural Context: Observations of "Protective Parenting" in First-Generation Latinos

Current literature presents four primary parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful. These styles provide an important shortcut for a constellation of parenting behaviors that have been characterized as consisting of warmth, demandingness, and autonomy granting. Empirically, only warmth and demandingness are typically measured. Research reporting on parenting styles in Latino samples has been equivocal leading to questions about conceptualization and measurement of parenting styles in this ethnic/cultural group. This lack of consensus may result from the chasm between concepts (e.g., authoritarian parenting) and observable parenting behaviors (e.g., warmth) in this ethnic group. The present research aimed to examine parenting styles and dimensions in a sample of Latino parents using the two usual dimensions (warmth, demandingness) and adding autonomy granting. Traditional parenting styles categories were examined, as well as additional categorizations that resulted from adding autonomy granting. Fifty first-generation Latino parents and their child (aged 4–9) participated. Parent–child interactions were coded with the Parenting Style Observation Rating Scale (P-SOS). In this sample, the four traditional parenting categories did not capture Latino families well. The combination of characteristics resulted in eight possible parenting styles. Our data showed the majority (61%) of Latino parents as "protective parents." Further, while mothers and fathers were similar in their parenting styles, expectations were different for male and female children. The additional dimensions and implications are discussed. The importance of considering the cultural context in understanding parenting in Latino families is emphasized, along with directions for future research.     

Understanding associations among family support,friend support,and psychological distress

Emotional support from family and friends is associated with lower psychological distress. This study examined whether genetic and environmental influences explain associations among family support, friend support, and psychological distress. Data were drawn from the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) study and included 947 pairs of monozygotic (MZ), same‐sex dizygotic (DZ), and opposite‐sex DZ twins. Results showed that a genetic factor explains the relation between friend support and psychological distress, independent of family support. Alternatively, a nonshared environmental factor accounts for an association between family support, friend support, and psychological distress. Thus, heritable factors shape a distinct relation between friend support and psychological distress, but unique experiences contribute to a link between family support, friend support, and psychological distress.     

The Relationship of Spirituality to Cognitive and Moral Development and Purpose in Life: An Exploratory Investigation

In this exploratory study of 152 undergraduate students, the relationships among spirituality, cognitive and moral development, and existential sense of meaning were examined. Results suggest that no relationship exists between spirituality and cognitive development, but that spirituality is positively related to both moral development and purpose in life.     

Dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships: Development and validation of two companion scales

This article presents self-report scales for the assessment of perceived dependency and insecurity in a romantic relationship. These scales were originally developed many years ago (Fei & Berscheid, 1977) but were never published. The process of original scale development is summarized, and results from five studies (total N= 1,283; including data from the original Fei & Berscheid studies) are presented showing evidence for (a) scale reliability and validity; (b) the association between dependency and insecurity and the relationship conditions that moderate this association; (c) the association of dependency and insecurity with other theoretically relevant dimensions of close relationships; and (d) dyadic-level issues of partner similarity and correlates of discrepancies in levels of dependency and insecurity. The results indicate that the two scales are reliable, valid, and associated with many other relationship constructs (e.g., commitment, love, closeness, and attachment).