Limiting screen time is only one of dozens of challenges for caregivers. How caregivers respond depends on the particular temperament of the child, on the culture, and on what the caregiver thinks is best.

211

Although thousands of researchers have traced the effects of parenting on child development, the work of one person, 50 years ago, continues to be influential. In her original research, Diana Baumrind (1967, 1971) studied 100 preschool children, all from California, almost all middle-class European Americans.

Baumrind found that parents differed on four important dimensions:

On the basis of these dimensions, Baumrind identified three parenting styles (summarized in Table 6.1).

Authoritarian parenting. The authoritarian parent’s word is law, not to be questioned. Misconduct brings strict punishment, usually physical. Authoritarian parents set down clear rules and hold high standards. They do not expect children to offer opinions; discussion about emotions and expressions of affection are rare. One adult from authoritarian parents said that “How do you feel?” had only two possible answers: “Fine” and “Tired.”

Permissive parenting. Permissive parents (also called indulgent) make few demands, hiding any impatience they feel. Discipline is lax, partly because they have low expectations for maturity. Permissive parents are nurturing and accepting, listening to whatever their offspring say, including cursing at the parent.

Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents set limits, but they are flexible. They encourage maturity, but they usually listen and forgive (not punish) if the child falls short. They consider themselves guides, not authorities (unlike authoritarian parents) and not friends (unlike permissive parents).

Other researchers describe a fourth style, called neglectful/uninvolved parenting. Neglectful parents are oblivious to their children’s behavior; they seem not to care. Their children do whatever they want, which makes some observers think the parents are permissive. But permissive parents care very much about their children, unlike neglectful parents.

212

The following long-term effects of parenting styles have been reported, not only in the United States but in many other nations as well (Baumrind, 2005; Baumrind et al., 2010; Chan & Koo, 2011; Huver et al., 2010; Rothrauff et al., 2009; Deater-Deckard, 2013).

PROBLEMS WITH THE RESEARCH Baumrind’s classification schema has been soundly criticized by more recent scientists. You can probably already see some of the ways her research was flawed.

More recent research finds that a child’s temperament powerfully affects caregivers. Good caregivers treat each child as an individual who needs personalized care. For example, fearful children require reassurance, while impulsive ones need strong guidelines. Parents of such children may, to outsiders, seem permissive or authoritarian.

Overprotection may be a consequence, not a cause, of childhood anxiety (McShane & Hastings, 2009; Deater-Deckard, 2013). Every child needs some protection and guidance; some more than others. The right balance depends on the particular child, as differential susceptibility makes clear.

A study of parenting at age 2 and children’s competence in kindergarten (including emotional regulation and friendships) found “multiple developmental pathways,” with the best outcomes dependent on both the child and the adult (Blandon et al., 2010). Such studies suggest that simplistic advice—from a book, a professional, or a neighbor who does not know the child—may be misguided. Longitudinal, careful observation of parent–child interactions is needed before judging that a caregiver is too lax or too rigid.

213

Given a multi-cultural and multi-contextual perspective, developmentalists hesitate to be too specific in recommending any particular parenting style. That does not mean that all families function equally well—far from it. Signs of emotional distress, including a child’s anxiety, aggression, and inability to play with others, indicate that the family may not be the safe haven of support and guidance that it should be.

Another challenge for caregivers is raising a child with a healthy understanding of sex and gender. Biology determines whether a baby is male or female (except in very rare cases): Those XX or XY chromosomes normally shape organs and produce hormones that differ for males and females.

Many scientists distinguish sex differences, which are biological, from gender differences, which are culturally prescribed. In theory, this distinction seems straightforward, but, as with every nature–nurture distinction, the interaction between sex and gender makes it hard to separate the two. Scientists need to “treat culture and biology not as separate influences but as interacting components of nature and nurture” (Eagly & Wood, 2013, p. 349).

Although that 23rd pair of chromosomes is crucial, learning is evident, first in the blue or pink caps put on newborn heads, and soon in what the children learn. Before age 2, children use gender labels (Mrs., Mr., lady, man) consistently. By age 4, children are convinced that certain toys (such as dolls or trucks) and roles (Daddy, Mommy, nurse, teacher, police officer, soldier) are reserved for one sex or the other.

214

Young children often believe that sex differences are not inborn. One little girl said she would grow a penis when she got older, and one little boy offered to buy his mother one. A 3-year-old went with his father to see a neighbor’s newborn kittens. Returning home, he told his mother that there were three girl kittens and two boy kittens. “How do you know?” she asked. “Daddy picked them up and read what was written on their tummies,” he replied.

Many young children do not realize that their own sex is permanent. In one preschool, the children themselves decided that one wash-up basin was for boys and the other for girls. A girl started to use the boys’ basin.

Boy: This is for the boys.

Girl: Stop it. I’m not a girl and a boy, so I’m here.

Boy: What?

Girl: I’m a boy and also a girl.

Boy: You, now, are you today a boy?

Girl: Yes.

Boy: And tomorrow what will you be?

Girl: A girl. Tomorrow I’ll be a girl. Today I’ll be a boy.

Boy: And after tomorrow?

Girl: I’ll be a girl.

[Ehrlich & Blum-Kulka, 2014, p. 31]

Although they may not think of sex as biological, many preschoolers are quite rigid about gender roles. Despite their parents’ and teachers’ wishes, children say, “No girls [or boys] allowed.” Most children consider ethnic discrimination immoral, but they accept some sex discrimination (Møller & Tenenbaum, 2011). Why?

Theories about how and why this occurs suggest explanations (Martin & Ruble, 2010; Leaper, 2013). Consider five broad theories.

215

PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY Freud (1938/1995) called the period from about ages 3 to 6 the phallic stage, named after the phallus, the Greek word for penis. At age 3 or 4, said Freud, boys become aware of their male sexual organ. They masturbate, fear castration, and develop sexual feelings toward their mother.

These feelings make every young boy jealous of his father—so jealous, according to Freud, that he wants to replace his dad. Freud called this the Oedipus complex, after Oedipus, son of a king in Greek mythology. Abandoned as an infant and raised in a distant kingdom, Oedipus returned to his birthplace and, without realizing it, killed his father and married his mother. When he discovered the horror, he blinded himself.

Freud believed that this ancient story dramatizes the overwhelming emotions that all boys feel about their parents—both love and hate. Every male feels guilty about his incestuous and murderous impulses. In self-defense, he develops a powerful conscience called the superego, which is quick to judge and punish.

That marks the beginning of morality, according to psychoanalytic theory. This theory contends that a boy’s fascination with superheroes, guns, kung fu, and the like arises from his unconscious impulse to kill his father. Further, an adult man’s homosexuality, homophobia, or obsession with guns, prostitutes, and hell arises from problems at the phallic stage.

Freud offered several descriptions of the moral development of girls. He thought they also want to eliminate the same-sex parent (her mother) and become intimate with the opposite-sex parent (her father), which explains why they dress in frills to become “daddy’s girl.”

According to this theory, at about age 5, children cope with guilt and fear about their strong impulses about their parents through identification; that is, they try to become like the same-sex parent. Consequently, young boys copy their fathers’ mannerisms, opinions, and actions, and girls copy their mothers’. Both sexes exaggerate the male or female role, which is why 5-year-olds have such sexist ideas.

Most psychologists have rejected Freud’s theory regarding sex and gender. They favor one or another of many other theories to explain the young child’s sex and gender awareness. However, sometimes personal experience seems to confirm Freud.

216

BEHAVIORISM Behaviorists believe that virtually all roles, values, and morals are learned. To behaviorists, gender distinctions are the product of ongoing reinforcement and punishment, as well as social learning.

For example, a boy who asks for both a train and a doll for his birthday is likely to get the train. Boys are rewarded for boyish requests, not for girlish ones. Indeed, the parental push toward traditional gender behavior in play and chores is among the most robust findings of decades of research on this topic (Eagly & Wood, 2013).

Gender differentiation may be subtle, with parents unaware that they are reinforcing traditional masculine or feminine behavior. For example, a study of parents talking to young children found that numbers were mentioned more often with the boys (Chang et al., 2011). This may be a precursor to the boys becoming more interested in math and science later on.

217

Social learning is considered an extension of behaviorism. According to that theory, people model themselves after people they perceive to be nurturing, powerful, and yet similar to themselves. For young children, those people are usually their parents.

As it happens, adults are the most gender-typed of their entire lives when they are raising young children. If an employed woman is ever to leave her job to become a housewife, it is when she has a baby. Fathers behave quite differently than mothers do with their young children. Since children learn gender roles from their parents, it is no surprise that they are quite sexist (Hallers-Haalboom et al., 2014).

Furthermore, although national policies (e.g., subsidizing early education) impact gender roles and many fathers are involved caregivers, women in every nation do much more child care, house cleaning, and meal preparation than do men (Hook, 2010). Children follow those examples, unaware that the behavior they see is caused partly by their very existence: Before children are born, many couples share domestic work equally.

Everywhere young girls and boys are socialized differently. For example, two 4-year-old girls might hug each other and hear “how sweet,” but a boy who hugs a boy might be pushed away. Already by age 6, rough-and-tumble play is the only accepted way that boys touch each other. Remember that such play is much more common in boys than girls: Behaviorists would attribute that to gender-based reinforcement.

COGNITIVE THEORY Cognitive theory offers an alternative explanation for the strong gender identity that becomes apparent at about age 5 (Kohlberg et al., 1983). Remember that cognitive theorists focus on how children understand various ideas. One idea that children develop is the difference between the sexes. A gender schema is the child’s understanding of male–female differences (Martin et al., 2011).

As cognitive theorists point out, young children see many gender-related differences, and they tend to perceive the world in simple, egocentric terms, as explained in Chapter 5. Therefore, they categorize male and female as opposites. Nuances, complexities, exceptions, and gradations about gender (and about almost everything else) are beyond them.

During the preoperational stage, appearance trumps logic. One group of researchers who endorse the cognitive interpretation note that “young children pass through a stage of gender appearance rigidity; girls insist on wearing dresses, often pink and frilly, whereas boys refuse to wear anything with a hint of femininity” (Halim et al., 2014, p. 1091).

In research reported by this group, parents discouraged stereotypes, but that did not necessarily sway a preschool girl who wanted a bright pink tutu and a sparkly tiara. The child’s gender schema overcame experiences with parents who avoided rigid gender stereotypes.

HUMANISM Humanism stresses the hierarchy of needs, beginning with survival, then safety, then love and belonging. The final two needs—respect and self-actualization—are not considered priorities for people until the earlier three have been satisfied.

Ideally, babies have all their basic needs (level one) met, and toddlers learn to feel safe (level two). That makes love and belonging (level three) crucial during early childhood, when children seek acceptance from their peers. Therefore, the girls seek to be one of the girls and the boys to be one of the boys.

In a study of slightly older children, participants wanted to be part of same-sex groups not because they disliked the other sex but because that satisfied their need to belong (Zosuls et al., 2011). By age 6, they are astute “gender detectives,” seeking to belong to the group of boys or girls. Mia is one example:

218

On her first day of school, Mia sits at the lunch table eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. She notices that a few boys are eating peanut butter and jelly, but not one girl is. When her father picks her up from school, Mia runs up to him and exclaims, “Peanut butter and jelly is for boys! I want a turkey sandwich tomorrow.”

[Quoted in Miller et al., 2013, p. 307]

Humanism might interpret this as evidence that Mia’s need to belong to the girls in her class overruled her earlier basic hunger need, which was satisfied with peanut butter and jelly.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY Evolutionary theory holds that male–female sexual passion is one of humankind’s basic drives, because all creatures have a powerful impulse to reproduce. Therefore, males and females try to look attractive to the other sex—walking, talking, and laughing in gendered ways. If girls see their mothers wearing makeup and high heels, they want to do likewise.

Already in early childhood, children have a powerful urge to become like the men, or like the women. This will prepare them, later on, to mate and conceive a new generation, following a deep evolutionary drive.

Thus, according to this theory, over millennia of human history, genes, chromosomes, and hormones have evolved to allow the species to survive. Genes dictate that boys are more active (rough-and-tumble play) and girls more domestic (playing house) because that prepares them for adulthood, when fathers defend against predators and mothers care for the home and children. To deny that is to deny nature.

WHAT IS BEST? Each major developmental theory strives to explain the ideas that young children express and the roles they follow. No consensus has been reached. That challenges caregivers, because they know they should not blindly follow the norms of their culture, yet they also know they need to provide guidance regarding male–female differences and everything else.

Regarding sex or gender, those who contend that nature (sex) is more important than nurture tend to design, cite, and believe studies that endorse their perspective. That has been equally true for those who believe that nurture (gender) is more important than nature. Only recently has a true interactionist perspective, emphasizing how nature affects nurture and vice versa, been endorsed (Eagly & Wood, 2013).