Laurence Steinberg

Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model

Despite broad consensus about the effects of parenting practices on child development, many questions about the construct parenting style remain unanswered. Particularly pressing issues are the variability in the effects of parenting style as a function of the childs cultural background, the processes through which parenting style influences the childs development, and the operationalization of parenting style. Drawing on historical review, the authors present a model that integrates two traditions in socialization research, the study of specific parenting practices and the study of global parent characteristics. They propose that parenting style is best conceptualized as a context that moderates the influence of specific parenting practices on the child. It is argued that only by maintaining the distinction between parenting style and parenting practice can researchers address questions concerning socialization processes. During the past 25 years, research based on Baumrinds conceptualization of parenting style has produced a remarkably consistent picture of the type of parenting conducive to the successful socialization of children into the dominant culture of the United States. Authoritativeness—a constellation of parent attributes that includes emotional support, high standards, appropriate autonomy granting, and clear, bidirectional communication—has been shown to help children and adolescents develop an instrumental competence characterized by the balancing of societal and individual needs and responsibilities. Among the indicators of instrumental competence are responsible independence, cooperation with adults and peers, psychosocial maturity, and academic success (for reviews, see Baumrind, 1989,199 la). This work on authoritative ness and its beneficial effects builds on half a century of research on parenting and parenting style. Yet, despite some impressive consistencies in the socialization literature, important questions remain unanswered. As researchers have expanded beyond samples of White, predominantly middle-class families, it has become increasingly clear that the influence of authoritativeness, as well as other styles of parenting, varies depending on the social milieu in which the family is embedded. For example, Baumrind (1972) reported that authoritarian parenting, which is associated with fearful, timid behavior and behavioral compliance among EuropeanAmerican children, is associated with assertiveness among African-American girls. Furthermore, recent studies in which the effects of authoritativeness have been compared across ethnic groups have consistently shown that authoritative parenting is most strongly associated with academic achievement among

Handbook of adolescent psychology

The study of and interest in adolescence in the field of psychology and related fields continues to grow, necessitating an expanded revision of this seminal work. This multidisciplinary handbook, edited by the premier scholars in the field, Richard Lerner and Laurence Steinberg, and with contributions from the leading researchers, reflects the latest empirical work and growth in the field.

Cognitive and affective development in adolescence.

Questions about the nature of normative and atypical development in adolescence have taken on special significance in the last few years, as scientists have begun to recast old portraits of adolescent behavior in the light of new knowledge about brain development. Adolescence is often a period of especially heightened vulnerability as a consequence of potential disjunctions between developing brain, behavioral and cognitive systems that mature along different timetables and under the control of both common and independent biological processes. Taken together, these developments reinforce the emerging understanding of adolescence as a critical or sensitive period for a reorganization of regulatory systems, a reorganization that is fraught with both risks and opportunities.

Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study.

In this study, 306 individuals in 3 age groups--adolescents (13-16), youths (18-22), and adults (24 and older)--completed 2 questionnaire measures assessing risk preference and risky decision making, and 1 behavioral task measuring risk taking. Participants in each age group were randomly assigned to complete the measures either alone or with 2 same-aged peers. Analyses indicated that (a) risk taking and risky decision making decreased with age; (b) participants took more risks, focused more on the benefits than the costs of risky behavior, and made riskier decisions when in peer groups than alone; and (c) peer effects on risk taking and risky decision making were stronger among adolescents and youths than adults. These findings support the idea that adolescents are more inclined toward risky behavior and risky decision making than are adults and that peer influence plays an important role in explaining risky behavior during adolescence.

Age Differences in Resistance to Peer Influence

Prior research describes the development of susceptibility to peer pressure in adolescence as following an inverted U-shaped curve, increasing during early adolescence, peaking around age 14, and declining thereafter. This pattern, however, is derived mainly from studies that specifically examined peer pressure to engage in antisocial behavior. In the present study, age differences and developmental change in resistance to peer influence were assessed using a new self-report instrument that separates susceptibility to peer pressure from willingness to engage in antisocial activity. Data from four ethnically and socioeconomically diverse samples comprising more than 3,600 males and females between the ages of 10 and 30 were pooled from one longitudinal and two cross-sectional studies. Results show that across all demographic groups, resistance to peer influences increases linearly between ages 14 and 18. In contrast, there is little evidence for growth in this capacity between ages 10 and 14 or between 18 and 30. Middle adolescence is an especially significant period for the development of the capacity to stand up for what one believes and resist the pressures of ones peers to do otherwise.

Unpacking Authoritative Parenting: Reassessing a Multidimensional Construct.

This study examines the independent and joint contributions of three core dimensions of authoritative parenting-acceptance-involvement, strictnesssupervision, and psychological autonomy granting-to adolescent adjustment. A sample of 8, 700 14- to IS-year-olds completed questionnaires that included indices of authoritative parenting and a set of instruments assessing different aspects of adjustment. Behavior problems were related more strongly to behavioral control than to psychological autonomy granting. Psychosocial development and internal distress were more strongly associated with both psychological autonomy granting and acceptance-involvement than with behavioral control Academic competence demonstrated significant relations with all three parenting variables. Curvilinear and interactive relations between parenting practices and adolescent adjustment were observed, but the specific pattern varied as a function of outcome assessed. Over the past four decades, a considerable body of research has accumulated on the relation between psychological well-being in childhood and adolescence and two fundamental aspects of parenting: control and acceptance. This literature has consistently shown that parental acceptance, inductive discipline, nonpunitive punishment practices, and consistency in childrearing are each associated with positive developmental outcomes in children (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Since the early 1970s, this constellation of practices has come to be known as authoritative parenting, one of several prototypic styles of parenting identified in the seminal studies of Diana Baumrind (1967, 1971). Children who are raised in authoritative homes score higher than their peers raised in authoritarian, indulgent, or neglectful homes on a variety of measures of competence, social development, selfperceptions, and mental health (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Several recent studies have applied Baumrinds model to explain variations in patterns of adolescent development, including academic achievement, psychosocial development, behavior problems, and psychological symptoms (e.g., Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991), and these reports find that adolescents, like their younger counterparts, benefit from authoritative parenting. Although the strong positive effects of authoritative parenting have been more consistently reported in studies of White, rather than nonWhite, youth (see, for example, Baumrind, 1972; Chao, 1994), no large-scale systematic studies ever have indicated that nonauthoritative parenting has more beneficial effects on adolescent development than authoritative parenting, regardless of the population studied. Despite the breadth and consistency of these findings, most empirical studies of parenting practices and adolescent outcomes continue to focus on single dimensions of the parent-child relationship considered independently. They leave unanswered several questions about the precise nature of this relationship. Three questions, in particular, define the focus of the study presented here. The first concerns the effects of parental control, a construct that continues to evolve amidst debate over its conceptualization (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). Although the distinction between psychological control-the relative degree of emotional autonomy that parents allowand behavioral control-the level of monitoring and limit setting that parents use-was articulated more than 30 years ago (Schaefer, 1965; see also Barber et al., 1994, and Steinberg, 1990), little empirical research has focused on the differential effects of these types of control. In light of existing theories about the potential impact of parental intrusiveness (e.g., an excess of psychological control) on the development of internalizing problems and the potential impact of parental leniency (e. …

Age Differences in Future Orientation and Delay Discounting

Age differences in future orientation are examined in a sample of 935 individuals between 10 and 30 years using a delay discounting task as well as a new self-report measure. Younger adolescents consistently demonstrate a weaker orientation to the future than do individuals aged 16 and older, as reflected in their greater willingness to accept a smaller reward delivered sooner than a larger one that is delayed, and in their characterizations of themselves as less concerned about the future and less likely to anticipate the consequences of their decisions. Planning ahead, in contrast, continues to develop into young adulthood. Future studies should distinguish between future orientation and impulse control, which may have different neural underpinnings and follow different developmental timetables.

Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry

The presence of peers increases risk taking among adolescents but not adults. We posited that the presence of peers may promote adolescent risk taking by sensitizing brain regions associated with the anticipation of potential rewards. Using fMRI, we measured brain activity in adolescents, young adults, and adults as they made decisions in a simulated driving task. Participants completed one task block while alone, and one block while their performance was observed by peers in an adjacent room. During peer observation blocks, adolescents selectively demonstrated greater activation in reward-related brain regions, including the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex, and activity in these regions predicted subsequent risk taking. Brain areas associated with cognitive control were less strongly recruited by adolescents than adults, but activity in the cognitive control system did not vary with social context. Results suggest that the presence of peers increases adolescent risk taking by heightening sensitivity to the potential reward value of risky decisions.

Parental Monitoring and Peer Influences on Adolescent Substance Use

OBJECTIVE To examine the joint influences of parental monitoring and peer influence on adolescent substance use over time. SUBJECTS 6500 adolescents attending six high schools in Wisconsin and northern California. DESIGN Longitudinal study. RESULTS Parental monitoring was negatively associated with substance use, whereas the more involved an adolescents peers were in substance use, the more likely he or she also was to use drugs and alcohol. Effects of monitoring and peer coercion were strongest for boys and girls at the transition into substance use, rather than at the transition from experimentation to regular use. The effect of parental monitoring on changes in adolescent substance use is mediated not so much by the nature of the adolescents peer associates, but by its direct effect on the adolescent. Specifically, poorly monitored adolescents are more likely to use drugs, and drug-using adolescents seek out like-minded friends. Once an adolescent associates with drug-using peers, his or her own substance use approaches their level. CONCLUSIONS Intervention effects should include both parents and community-level efforts. Parental monitoring is an effective tool both in the prevention of drug use and in the amelioration of drug use.

A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking†

It has been hypothesized that reward-seeking and impulsivity develop along different timetables and have different neural underpinnings, and that the difference in their timetables helps account for heightened risk-taking during adolescence. In order to test these propositions, age differences in reward-seeking and impulsivity were examined in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse sample of 935 individuals between the ages of 10 and 30, using self-report and behavioral measures of each construct. Consistent with predictions, age differences in reward-seeking follow a curvilinear pattern, increasing between preadolescence and mid-adolescence, and declining thereafter. In contrast, age differences in impulsivity follow a linear pattern, with impulsivity declining steadily from age 10 on. Heightened vulnerability to risk-taking in middle adolescence may be due to the combination of relatively higher inclinations to seek rewards and still maturing capacities for self-control.