Information Resource

Authoritarian vs. Authoritative Parenting

Many of us end up parenting based on what  
we believe our parents did right and wrong. 
 
[Note from Center Co-directors:* Our Center is fortunate to be able to benefit from the energy and
talents of many UCLA students. Because of her interest in the impact on children of authoritarian
parenting, Chaoyi He, an undergraduate, researched the topic of parenting styles and we developed the
following to be shared as part of the Center’s resources.]

ssuming that a parent’s goal is to help offspring develop into healthy and well-functioning

A adults, the question of best parenting practices arises. Scholars have approached this in the
context of parenting styles. The popular media have adopted terms such as helicopter parents,
free range parents, tiger moms, uninvolved parents, abuse parents, and more.

Based on early work by Baumrind and also by Maccoby and Martin, four major parenting styles
have been categorized -- neglectful, authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Each style is
distinguished along two continua -- demandingness and responsiveness. Responsiveness stresses the
degree of regard given to a child's wants and needs (i.e., at one end, being extremely responsive to
wants and needs and on the other end being completely unresponsive). Demandingness stresses the
degree to which boundaries are set and demands are made (i.e., ranging from setting firm boundaries
and making firm demands to setting no boundaries and making requests that are quickly withdrawn
at the first sign of resistance). Overlapping these is the type of overprotective parenting suggested
by the term helicopter parenting. In addition to the above, research has studied proactive and reactive
parenting.

Our focus here is on contrasting authoritarian and authoritative parenting and some implications for
involving parents at a school.

About Authoritarian Parenting

Authoritarian parents are characterized as being extremely strict -- demanding unquestioning

obedience and exerting excessive control over their child (Baumrind 1991). They are perceived as
lacking warmth and responsiveness. Their methods of control include but are not limited to threats,
coercion, guilt induction, love withdrawal, and punishment (Barber, 2002).

Authoritarian parenting is associated with many externalizing and internalizing problems in both
girls and boys (Akhtar, Malik, & Begeer, 2016; Braza et al., 2015; Calzada, Barajas-Gonzalez,
Huang & Brotman, 2017; Cheung, 2014; Clark, Dahlen, & Nicholson, 2015; Hartman et al., 2014;
Kerpelman, Mcelwain, Pittman, & Adler-Baeder, 2013; King, Vidourek, & Merianos, 2016; Moed,
Gershoff, & Bringewatt, 2016; Palmer, 2014; Pellerone, Tolini, & Polopoli, 2016; Tavassolie,
Dudding, Madigan, Thorvardarson, & Winsler, 2016; Wood & Kennison, 2017; Yaffe, 2017). For
example: Children who experience perfectionistic pressures from parents are more prone to high
levels of perfectionism, rigidity, critical attitudes, and anxiety (Randall, Bohner, & Travers, 2015).
They also report higher levels of internalizing problems and lower levels of life satisfaction. Harsh
parenting, which usually entails spanking, slapping, yelling and shouting at the children, is
negatively associated with academic achievement and less engagement in classroom activities
(Wang, Deng, & Du, 2017).
_____________

*The material in this document reflects work done by Chaoyi He as part of her involvement with
the national Center for MH in Schools and Student/Learning Supports at UCLA.
The center is co-directed by Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor in the Dept. of Psychology, UCLA.
Website: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu Send comments to [email protected]
1 
 
Commonly cited problems are trends for the children to

 conform easily and have strong relational dependence

 associate obedience and success with love
 struggle with self-control and making choices
 have a strong sense of failure and low self-esteem
 have difficulty in social situations (e.g., lack social competence, display inappropriate
aggressive and risky behavior when not at home, be fearful or overly shy)
 suffer from depression and anxiety 

Notes:
Although authoritarian parenting is associated with many negative outcomes,
it is not equivalent to abuse.
In pursuing specific practices, it is likely that most parents think they are operating in the
best interests of their children and are uninformed about potential negative consequences.

Chaoyi He notes the use of authoritarian parenting in Asian cultures where there is a belief
among many that tough love leads to success. She quotes You and Malley-Morrison (2000):
Many Chinese proverbs and sayings demonstrate the firm belief in strict, authoritarian style
parenting. An example is 打是疼，罵是愛,  which literally translates to “beating is (a sign of)
affection, (and) cursing is (a sign of) love” (Xiāo Yáo Yòu Nǎo). Another example is 爱在心里，
狠在面皮, which translates to “love (your) children in (your) heart, (but) display hatred on (your)
face” (Xiāo Yáo Yòu Nǎo). Yet another example: 棒頭出孝子，箸頭出忤逆, which translates to
“a stick produces filial sons, (and) chopsticks [symbolizing indulgence] produce disobedient ones”
(Bǎi Kē Gù Shì). These sayings provide a little insight into the traditional Chinese parenting
strategy: strict discipline. The Chinese, among other Asians, embrace authoritarian parenting. It
is enrooted and normalized in Asian parenting culture, characterized by “parental behaviors such
as low emotional warmth, over control, greater rejection, unquestioning obedience and respect
for authority, less verbal reasoning and discussion from their children”.

Authoritative Parents
Authoritative parents are characterized as making reasonable demands and being highly
responsive. They have high expectations and set basic limits, while listening to and validating their
child and ensuring the youngster has appropriate support and guidance to succeed and be
independent. They apply discipline fairly and discuss the reasoning behind the discipline and how
to change behavior in the future. They recognize children’s rights and individual differences. And
they continually convey caring, love, and warmth.
While authoritative parenting generally is viewed as likely to produce the best outcomes, there are
potential negatives that need to be understood and countered. On the positive side, research
suggests that children raised by authoritative parents are more likely to become independent, self-
reliant, socially accepted, academically successful, be well-behaved with good emotional control
and regulation, and have happier dispositions (Carlo, White, Streit, Knight, & Zeiders, 2017;
Karim, Sharafat, & Mahmud, 2013; Kenney, Lac, Hummer, Grimaldi, & Labrie, 2015; Leung, Lo,
Tsang, & Chan, 2017; Li, X., & Xie, J. 2017; Majumder, 2015; Mckinney, Morse, & Pastuszak,
2014; Pinquart, 2015; Raboteg-Saric & Sakic, 2013; Smokowski, Bacallao, Cotter, & Evans, 2014;
Yeung et al., 2016). For example: Authoritative parenting is associated with a higher degree of self-
control (Palmer, 2010) and has been shown to be associated with favorable self-concepts and
negatively associated with social withdrawal (Cheung 2014).

2 
 
With respect to possible negative aspects, all intensive parenting takes considerable time and
persistence. Authoritative parenting places additional demands on those in the home. The
interpersonal transactions can be extremely complex and must be carefully moderated, family
members must be in agreement about practices and be flexible when changes are called for, conflicts
do arise, differences among siblings must be considered, and a high degree of patience is called for
on the part of everyone in the home. All this can be stressful and disruptive.

Some Implications for Involving Parents at School

Clearly, as with students, parents differ in many ways. As schools strive to enhance parent
involvement, these difference raise significant challenges. To date, school improvement plans have
not adequately addressed these challenges. Our analyses indicate that this will continue to be the
case as long as the focus fails to account for the variety of individuals providing “parenting” and
until “involvement” is designed as a mutually beneficial, equitable, and engaging process.

Instead of just focusing on parent involvement think about students being raised primarily by
grandparents, aunts, older siblings, “nannies,” and in foster homes. Primary child caretakers differ.
That is why we stress the term home involvement.

Other home involvement complications stem from factors such as caretaker economic status, work
schedules, immigrant status, ethnic and racial considerations, single parent families, number of
youngsters in the home, homes where English is not spoken, extended families, military families,
families where parents are in prison, foster homes, and homeless families and youngsters. In
addition, some caretakers have disabilities, and some are dysfunctional.

Home situations also differ in caretaker attitudes about school. Such attitudes often reflect personal
past experiences as well as current encounters and how well their youngsters are doing at school.
(Remember, some have more than one youngster who is not doing well.) Involving reluctant primary
caretakers is difficult and often handled at school as a low priority.

In general, as with students, parents and other caretakers vary in their personal motivation and ability
to participate at school. And as with many students who are not doing well at school, (re)establishing
productive working relationships with some caretakers involves addressing individual psychosocial
and educational barriers and doing so in a personalized way.

With all this in mind, the Center’s focus on home involvement and engagement conceives a
continuum of potential interventions that reflects the differences in primary caretakers’ practices,
needs, and interests and the needs of the school. At one end of the continuum, the focus is on helping
those in the home address their own basic needs so that they are able to meet basic obligations to
their children. At the other end, the emphasis is on increasing home involvement in improving what
goes on at schools and supporting public education. In between, there are interventions to enhance
communication between school and home (especially with reference to matters related to the
student), participation in making essential decisions about the student, support at home related to the
student's basic learning and development, and involvement in solving problems and providing
support at home and at school with respect to a student's special needs.

For a deeper discussion of Home Involvement, Engagement, and Re-engagement in Schooling go

to http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/book/ch6home.pdf .

3 
 
 References and Resources Used in Preparing this Resource
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2017). Addressing barriers to learning: In the classroom and schoolwide – access this
new book and for other free resources by going to the Center's homepage at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/

Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2018). Transforming student and learning supports: Developing a unified,
comprehensive, and equitable system. San Diego: Cognella.
Akhtar, P., Malik, J. A., & Begeer, S. (2016). The grandparents’ influence: Parenting styles and social competence
among children of joint families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 603-611. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-
0576-5
Barber, B. K. (2002) Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004
Braza, P., Carreras, R., Muñoz, J. M., Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Pascual-Sagastizábal, E., Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2013).
Negative maternal and paternal parenting styles as predictors of children’s behavioral problems: moderating effects
of the child’s sex. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 847-856. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9893-0
Calzada, E., Barajas-Gonzalez, R., Huang, K., & Brotman, L. (2017). Early childhood internalizing problems in
Mexican- and Dominican-origin children: The role of cultural socialization and parenting practices. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46, 551-562. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2015.1041593
Carlo, G., White, R. M., Streit, C., Knight, G. P., & Zeiders, K. H. (2017). Longitudinal relations among parenting
styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in U.S. Mexican adolescents. Child Development. Epub ahead of
print .doi:10.1111/cdev.12761
Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting
through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1994.tb00806.x

Cheung, K. (2014). Relations between parenting behaviors, parent traits, and children's social competence in
Chinese immigrant families (Order No. AAI3567246). Available from PsycINFO. (1520900103; 2014-99080-
308). https://search.proquest.com/docview/1520900103?accountid=14512
Clark, C. M., Dahlen, E. R., & Nicholson, B. C. (2015). The role of parenting in relational aggression and
prosocial behavior among emerging adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 185-202.
doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1002653
Dewar, G. (2017). The authoritative parenting style: Warmth, rationality, and high standards: An evidence-based
guide. Online at https://www.parentingscience.com/authoritative-parenting-style.html
Diaconu-Gherasim LR, Măirean C. (2916). Perception of parenting styles and academic achievement: The mediating
role of goal orientations. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 378-385.
Hartman, J. D., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Corbin, W. R., Gates, J. R., Leeman, R. F., Luk, J. W., & King, K. M. (2015).
Direct and indirect links between parenting styles, self-concealment (secrets), impaired control over drinking and
alcohol-related outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 40, 102-108. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.08.009
Hsin, A., & Xie, Y. (2014). Explaining Asian Americans academic advantage over whites.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8416-8421. doi:10.1073/pnas.1406402111
Karim, A. R., Sharafat, T., & Mahmud, A. Y. (2014). Cognitive emotion regulation in children as related to their
parenting style, family type and gender. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Science, 39. (No 2) doi:
10.3329/jasbs.v39i2.17860
Kenney, S. R., Lac, A., Hummer, J. F., Grimaldi, E. M., & Labrie, J. W. (2015). pathways of parenting style on
adolescents’ college adjustment, academic achievement, and alcohol risk. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 17, 186-203. doi:10.1177/1521025115578232
King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A. , and Merianos, A. L. (2016). Authoritarian parenting and youth depression: results
from a national study. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 44, 130-39. doi:
10.1080/10852352.2016.1132870

Leung, A. N., Wong, S. S., Wong, I. W., & Mcbride-Chang, C. (2009). Filial piety and psychosocial adjustment in
Hong Kong Chinese early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 651-667.
doi:10.1177/0272431609341046

4 
 
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P.
Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology Vol.4. New York: Wiley.
Majumder, M. A. (2015). The impact of parenting style on children’s educational outcomes in the United States.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 37, 89-98. doi:10.1007/s10834-015-9444-5
Matejevic M, Todorovic J, Jovanovic AD. (2014). Patterns of family functioning and dimensions of parenting style.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 431-437.
Mckinney, C., Morse, M., & Pastuszak, J. (2014). Effective and ineffective parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 37,
1203-1225. doi:10.1177/0192513x14537480
Leung, C., Lo, S. K., Tsang, S., & Chan, R. (2017). Child learning and family mealtime environment, parenting style
and family functioning among preschoolers in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development,
27, 69-82. doi:10.1080/02185385.2017.1335228
Li, X., & Xie, J. (2017). Parenting styles of Chinese families and children’s social-emotional and cognitive
developmental outcomes. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,25, 637-650.
doi:10.1080/1350293x.2017.1331077
Moed, A., Gershoff, E. T., & Bringewatt, E. H. (2016). Violence exposure as a mediator between parenting and
adolescent mental health. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48, 235-247. doi:10.1007/s10578-016-0636-5
Muñoz, J. M., Braza, P., Carreras, R., Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Pascual-Sagastizábal, E., Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2017).
Daycare center attendance buffers the effects of maternal authoritarian parenting style on physical aggression in
children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 391. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00391.
Palmer, C. D. (2010). Parenting style and self-control skills (Order No. AAI3399525). Available from PsycINFO.
(815572900; 2010-99180-191). https://search.proquest.com/docview/815572900?accountid=14512
Pellerone, M., Tolini, G., & Polopoli, C. (2016). Parenting, identity development, internalizing symptoms, and
alcohol use: a cross-sectional study in a group of Italian adolescents. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment,
Volume 12, 1769-1778. doi:10.2147/ndt.s106791

Pinquart, M. (2015). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic achievement in children and
adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 475-493. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children
and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53, 873-932.
doi:10.1037/dev0000295
Raboteg-Saric, Z., & Sakic, M. (2013). Relations of parenting styles and friendship quality to self-esteem, life
satisfaction and happiness in adolescents. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 749-765. doi:10.1007/s11482-
013-9268-0
Randall, E. T., Bohnert, A. M., & Travers, L. V. (2015). Understanding affluent adolescent adjustment: The
interplay of parental perfectionism, perceived parental pressure, and organized activity involvement. Journal of
Adolescence, 41, 56-66. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.005
Smokowski, P. R., Bacallao, M. L., Cotter, K. L., & Evans, C. B. (2014). The effects of positive and negative
parenting practices on adolescent mental health outcomes in a multicultural sample of rural youth. Child
Psychiatry & Human Development, 46, 333-345. doi:10.1007/s10578-014-0474-2
Tavassolie, T., Dudding, S., Madigan, A. L., Thorvardarson, E., & Winsler, A. (2016). Differences in perceived
parenting style between mothers and fathers: implications for child outcomes and marital conflict. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 25, 2055–2068. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0376-y
Wang, M., Deng, X., & Du, X. (2017). Harsh parenting and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents:
Potential mediating roles of effortful control and classroom engagement. Journal of School Psychology. Published
online, doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.002
Wood, E. E., & Kennison, S. M. (2017). Young children’s risk-taking: mothers’ authoritarian parenting predicts risk-
taking by daughters but not sons. Child Development Research, 2017, 1-8. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3719358
Yaffe, Y. (2017). Establishing specific links between parenting styles and the s-anxieties in children: separation, social,
and school. Journal of Family Issues. Published online doi:10.1177/0192513x17710286
Yeung, J.W.K., Cheung, CK., Kwok, S.Y.C.L. et al.. (2016). Socialization effects of authoritative parenting and its
discrepancy on children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1980. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10826-
015-0353-x
You, H. S., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2000). Young adult attachment styles and intimate relationships with close friends:
A cross-cultural study of Koreans and Caucasian Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 528–534.

5