Parenting style and psychosocial outcomes in a sample of Jamaican adolescents

Abstract

We examined the relationship between parenting style and adolescents' psychological and behavioural well-being in the Jamaican context. Consistent with pertinent studies from western societies, our data indicated that authoritarian parenting was associated with diminished psychological and behavioural adjustment, such that adolescents who reported their parents as more authoritarian also reported a greater risk of anger depression, suicide ideation, and conduct problems. Further, gender moderated the effect of authoritarian parenting on conduct problems, with the association being significantly greater for boys than for girls. Additionally, adolescents' agreement with parents' style of parenting moderated the association between authoritarian parenting and adolescents' psychological distress, such that when adolescents disagreed with their parents' parenting behaviours, adolescents were more likely to exhibit psychosocial problems. We discussed our findings within the context of cultural socialisation processes and the probable influence of globalisation on traditional cultural values and attitudes. We also noted implications for social policies.

Keywords:

• parenting
• adolescents
• Jamaica
• psychological adjustment
• conduct problems

Introduction

The strategies parents employ in socialising their children and the effect of those strategies on children's developmental outcomes have been a key focus, albeit controversial, of the child development literature. Even more contentious is the common supposition that the relationship between parenting and child outcomes is generalisable across or within cultures. For example, while the grand theories of child development (e.g. cognitive-developmental, psychoanalytic) have stressed the universality of development, authors such as Lee and Johnson (2007) have argued that an over-reliance on those perspectives has led to an underestimation of the role of culture on care-giving outcomes. Observers of cultural diversity have maintained that human interactions and processes are not transferrable across cultural contexts because cultures differ along the lines of history, economics, customs, and level of development (Nsamenang, 1992). Therefore, similar socialisation practices may present dissimilar results cross-culturally (Lansford et al., 2005; Nsamenang, 1992; Smith, Springer, & Barrett, 2011), given that parenting behaviours viewed inappropriate, or even abusive, in one culture may be considered nurturing in another (Chao, 2001; Korbin, 2003; Lansford, Deator-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2004; Nsamenang, 1992; Russell, Crockett, & Chao, 2010). This is because ‘… contextual forces affect how parents behave and may accentuate or attenuate the effect of parental behaviors on children's development’ (Collins, Macobby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000, p. 228).

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between parenting and psychosocial outcomes on Jamaican adolescents. The focus is on Jamaican adolescents because Jamaica, a small island (4243 square miles) democracy within the region of the Americas, has in recent times experienced a troubling escalation of maladaptive behaviours in children and youth (Smith & Green, 2007; Smith et al., 2011). For example, the island has one of the highest youth (aged 15–25 years) violence rates in the world (Abrahams-Clivo, 2005), a dynamic that has signalled an urgent need for research to investigate the impact of various social contexts on maladaptive youth behaviours (Smith et al., 2011). Although there have been various conjectures about the root causes of youth dysfunctional behaviours, much of the debate has targeted cultural childrearing practices. However, the dearth of pertinent local research presents a challenge to supporting or disputing those assumptions (Smith & Green, 2007; Smith et al., 2011). Much of the suppositions about the parenting–youth maladjustment link are grounded in extrapolations from research done in industrialised societies, primarily the United States. However, some authors (for example, Baumrind, 2005; Chan & Koo, 2010; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) have maintained that although parenting behaviours are indelible features of adjustment, child outcomes are not universal but, rather, rooted in aspects of culture (Chao, 2001; Nsamenang, 1992; Russell et al., 2010).

Parenting behaviours and child outcomes

The most commonly used conceptualisation of parenting is derived from Baumrind's (1991, 2005) two-dimensional framework of responsiveness (warmth and supportiveness) and demandingness (behavioural control). Baumrind maintained that the ideal parenting method is authoritative, characterised by a balance of responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents value reasoned communication and provide guidance without being overbearing (Baumrind, 1991, 2005). Conversely, the least advantageous parenting is authoritarian, characterised by excessive demandingness and low responsiveness. Typically, authoritarian parents are highly restrictive, dictatorial, and exhibit a propensity to harsh discipline (Baumrind, 1991, 2005; Lamborn et al., 1991; Querido, Warner, & Eyberg, 2002).

Consistent with Baumrind's perspective, research – at least in the United States – has consistently shown authoritative parenting to foster the best child developmental outcomes, particularly those from two-parent, middle-class populations of European descent (Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter, & Keehn, 2006; Russell et al., 2010). However, the findings on parenting in context are at best unclear. While some studies (for example, Querido et al., 2002) have shown that authoritative parenting produces the best child outcomes regardless of context, others (for example, Lansford et al., 2004) have reported either positive effects or inconclusive findings for authoritarian parenting.

The limited research employing non-US samples has also produced inconclusive findings. Chan and Koo (2010) reported better overall adjustment among British children from authoritative homes compared with their peers from authoritarian homes. However, Elias and Yee's (2009) data indicated no significant association between parent behaviours and child outcomes among Malaysian adolescents. Gershoff et al. (2010) concluded from their study of parenting behaviours and child adjustment in six countries across three continents (African, Asian, and Europe) that parenting behaviours typical of authoritarian parenting produced poor adjustment in children regardless of the cultural normativeness of the parenting behaviours. Similarly, Wang, Pomerantz, and Chen (2007) observed comparable parenting effects among Chinese and US children, despite the obvious opposing cultural orientations of the two societies. Authoritarian parenting did not appear to be significantly associated with problematic adjustment among Arab children (Dwairy, Achoui, Abouserie, & Farah, 2006). Lansford et al. (2004) found a positive association between corporal punishment (a characteristic of authoritarian parenting) and behaviour problems among European American children but not among African American children. However, corporal punishment predicted psychological problems in two Caribbean islands, St Kitts and Puerto Rico, only when children perceived the practice as parental rejection (Rohner, Kean, & Cournoyer, 1991; Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006). Notwithstanding, some meta-analytical studies (for example, McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994) have implicated parenting to play only a minimal role in socio-emotional functioning in children. Arguably, the obvious lack of a clear basis for the conflictual findings warrants further inquiry into the relationship between parenting behaviours and child outcomes (Gershoff et al., 2010; Rippoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006).

Parenting in the Jamaican context

Jamaican caregivers favour a dictatorial style of care-giving, characterised by extreme restrictiveness and harsh discipline, evidenced by the almost universal use of corporal punishment in the home and school (Brown & Johnson, 2008; Smith & Mosby, 2003; UNICEF, 2008). Corporal punishment is culturally sanctioned and deemed imperative for the proper upbringing of children (Brown & Johnson, 2008; United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2009). Not only is this method of discipline presumed to be pedagogically efficacious, but a religious imperative to not ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ (Smith & Mosby, 2003; Smith et al., 2011). Furthermore, consistent with authoritarian parenting, Jamaican caregivers do not subscribe to open and reasoned communication with children (Barrow, 1996; Brown & Johnson, 2008; Smith & Mosby, 2003). Communication between parent and child is mostly in the form of commands from caregiver to child (Brown & Johnson, 2008) and parents talk ‘at’ rather than ‘with’ their children (Barrow, 1996), attributes that have been judged detrimental to establishing warm and trusting parent–child relationships (Barrow, 1996; Smith & Mosby, 2003).

Brown and Johnson (2008) examined Jamaican childrearing practices and observed that, irrespective of socio-demographic characteristics, parents ‘demonstrated limited appreciation of the rights of children to protection from abuse in the home manifested by the use of corporal punishment and the rights of children to participation, manifested by the absence of children's voices in discussion and decision making’ (2008, p. 39). In another study (Bailey, Branche, & Le Franc, 1998, cited in Ricketts & Anderson, 2008, p. 72), Jamaican children reported ‘a lack of emotional support, and being hurt and embarrassed by the insults and unkind remarks hurled at them by their parents’ – parenting behaviours that have been shown to predict unfavourable psychosocial consequences for children (Baumrind, 1991, 2005; Smith et al., 2011).

Undoubtedly, the parenting behaviours described here give the appearance of the low nurturance and high control typical of authoritarian parenting and parenting that thwart healthy child development (Baumrind, 1991, 2005). These dynamics have led Ricketts and Anderson (2008) to express concern about the potentially adverse effects of Jamaican childrearing practices on children. However, due to the lack of pertinent research, whether those care-giving behaviours are detrimental (or supportive) to Jamaican children's developmental adjustment is unclear. Brown and Johnson (2008) emphasised the need for studies that extend the understanding of Jamaican parenting practices. Those authors underscored the necessity for investigators to focus on children's own voices in such studies.

Limitations of past studies

Several limitations of past parenting studies have been implicated as contributing to the inconclusive findings reported earlier. For example, the majority of inquiries have utilised childhood samples instead of adolescent samples (Elias & Yee, 2009; Milevsky et al., 2006) and those that have employed adolescent samples have used retrospective reports (Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006). Further, most studies have relied on parents' reports of their own parenting behaviours rather than the opinions of those most affected by the parenting: the offspring themselves (Gershoff et al., 2010; Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006). Similarly, researchers have depended on parents' accounts of their children's functioning; children themselves are rarely the source of information about their own feelings and perceptions of their experiences (Korbin, 2003; Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006). Furthermore, the overreliance on European American middle-class families in the United States has obscured important contextual variances in the understanding of parent–child relationships (Gershoff et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Clearly, there is great need for investigative attention to be paid to the interplay between parenting and child outcomes across cultural contexts (Chao, 2001). Finally, much of the past research has relied almost exclusively on bivariate correlational designs (Collins et al., 2000). More sophisticated designs are necessary to tease out potential moderating variables on the relationship between parenting and child outcomes.

The present study

The goal of the current study was to investigate the associations between Jamaican adolescents' perceptions of their parents' style of parenting and adolescents' psychosocial outcomes. We designed the study to address the limitations of past studies in several ways. First, we used adolescents' reports of their parents' behaviours and adolescents' thoughts about their own functioning. Second, we conducted the study outside the United States, in a relatively culturally and ethnically homogeneous society, thereby minimising the potential confounding effects of those variables. Third, adolescents' degree of agreement with their parents' parental practices were included.

The gender of adolescents is included because there is documented evidence that girls and boys are parented differently in the Jamaican context. Boys are subjected to more severe physical discipline while girls experience greater verbal abuse (Smith & Mosby, 2003; United Nations, 2006–2010; UNDP, 2009). Further, whereas girls are placed under tight surveillance to protect them from problematic peers and sexual encounters with the opposite sex (Brown & Johnson, 2008; Smith & Mosby, 2003), boys are allowed to roam unsupervised (Brown & Johnson, 2008; USAID, 2005). Therefore, it is logical to expect gender to interact with parenting behaviours to affect child outcomes. Moreover, there is strong evidence regarding the differential psychosocial disposition of males and females (Bongers, Koot, Ende, & Verhulst, 2003). Given that authoritarian parenting is the typical mode of care-giving in Jamaica, that authoritarian parenting is associated with psychosocial problems (Smith et al., 2011), and that Jamaican children are socialised differently as a function of gender (USAID, 2005; UNICEF, 2008), we expect the following:

1.	Parenting to be related to adolescent psychological and behaviour adjustment. Specifically, we expect more authoritarian parenting to be related to diminished psychological and behaviour adjustment and, conversely, less authoritarian parenting to be related to enhanced psychological and behaviour adjustment.
2.	Gender to moderate the effect of the relationship between parenting and adolescents' psychological and behaviour adjustment. Specifically, we expect more authoritarian parenting to have differential psychosocial effects for boys and girls.
3.	Adolescents' agreement with their parents' parenting behaviours to moderate the effect of parenting on adolescents' psychological and behaviour adjustment.

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of 563 Jamaican adolescents, aged 11–19 years (mean = 15.10 years) and representing Grades 7–11, was drawn from five public high schools in the metropolitan area of the capital city, Kingston. The sample was comprised of 322 (57.2%) females) and 202 (35.9%) males. Thirty-nine (6.9%) of the respondents did not indicate their gender. The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Description of sample socio-demographic variables (n = 563).

Demographic variable	n	%^a
Gender
Male	202	35.9
Female	322	57.2
Parents' marital status
Single	233	41.4
Married	176	31.3
Living together/not married	81	14.4
Divorced	28	5.0
Father's education
Less than secondary	30	5.3
Secondary	343	60.9
Some college and above	136	24.2
Mother's education
Less than secondary	50	8.9
Secondary	322	57.2
Some college and above	129	22.9
Note: ^aBecause of missing data the percentages do not always add up to 100% of the sample size.

Procedure

Permission and approval to conduct the study were given by the local Ministry of Education and the administration of individual schools, acting in loco parentis. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors' home institution. Participants completed the self-administered surveys in group settings in space designated by the school administration. Prior to data collection, consent was obtained from individual students after they had been informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could discontinue their involvement at any time. Participants were also informed of the researchers' efforts to ensure anonymity of their responses. They were instructed not to place any identifying information on the survey. Additionally, every attempt was made to provide ample spacing between respondents and their peers to keep their responses as private as possible. Respondents were also asked not to discuss or share their responses with anyone. Upon return of the survey, students were presented with a token packet, which included a pen and pencil.

Measures

Demographics

Participants indicated their gender, age, parental marital and level of education. Age was measured in years and parents' marital status was recorded as single (never been married), married, living together (not legally married) or divorced.

Parenting style

Adolescents responded on a four-point Likert type scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = often, 3 = always) to 23 items regarding their parents' style and frequency of interaction with the adolescent at home, in the past or currently. The items were representative of parenting behaviours commonly used in parenting and child socialisation research (for example, Barber & Thomas, 1986; Lamborn et al., 1991). Examples were my parents/guardians: ‘yell or scream at me’; ‘hit me with hard objects’; ‘let me go anywhere I want to’; ‘allow me to explain myself’; or ‘say nice things to me to make me feel good about myself’. Factor analytical procedure identified three distinct dimensions of parenting: authoritative (11 items), authoritarian (11 items), and permissive (one item). Composite scores were computed by summing the scores on the items for authoritativeness (α = 0.87) and authoritarianism (α = 0.89) parenting. For this study, the dimensions were combined into one scale with higher scores indicating more authoritarian parenting.

Psychological adjustment

Three scales from the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument: Version 2 (MAYSI-2) assessed internalised distress. The 52-item paper-and-pencil self-administered protocol was designed for identifying potential mental health problems in adolescents. The measure identifies thoughts and feelings experienced or behaviours exhibited in the past few months. Respondents indicate ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to denote whether each item is true or not true of them. The MAYSI-2 is scored by summing the positive (‘yes’) responses on each scale. The scales selected for this study were: (1) angry–irritable (nine items), which assesses feelings of preoccupying anger and vengefulness and addresses respondents' propensity toward irritability (e.g. ‘Have you felt angry a lot?’); (2) depressed–anxious (nine items), which evaluates symptoms of depression and anxiety (e.g. ‘Have you given up hope for your life?’); and (3) suicide ideation (five items), which identifies specific thoughts and feelings symptomatic of suicidal intent and injury (e.g. ‘Have you felt that life was not worth living?’). Reported internal consistency values among the scales ranged from 0.61 to 89 (average = 0.75); test–retest reliability ranged from 0.55 to 0.93. These coefficients are similar to those reported for scores on comprehensive psychological measures such as the well-established Child Behavior Checklist – YSR measure and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (Grisso & Barnum, 2006). For this sample, Cronbach alpha values for the three scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.80 (average = 0.73).

Conduct problems

Adolescents responded to seven items, drawn from the extant literature as representing behaviour problems, indicating the frequency of their involvement in antisocial and delinquent activities (e.g. stolen things, carried a weapon for protection, sold drugs, used drugs). The seven items were set on a Likert-type scale on which respondents indicated how often (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = a few times, and 3 = many times) they had participated in the given antisocial activity. Reliability statistics for the current sample indicated a Cronbach alpha of 0.89.

Agreement with parenting

Adolescents responded to 12 items set on a four-point Likert-type scale indicating the degree to which they agreed with statement about their parents' behaviours. Response choices were: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. Examples of these items were that ‘It is okay for parents to’: ‘flog their children whenever necessary for any behavior’; ‘praise children for doing well’; or ‘believe that children should speak only when they are spoken to’. Reliability statistics for the sample indicated a Cronbach alpha of 0.77.

Results

Demographic information for the sample is shown in Table 1. Our first hypothesis stated that more authoritarian parenting would be related to diminished psychological adjustment and conduct problems and less authoritarian parenting to enhance psychological and behaviour adjustment. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance wherein the combined scale for authoritarian and authoritative parenting (higher scores indicating more authoritarian parenting) served as the independent variable and the subscales from the MAYSI (i.e. anger, depression, suicide ideation) and conduct problems served as the dependent variables all entered into the same model. Results demonstrated an overall multivariate effect of parenting and psychological and conduct problems, Wilk's Lambda F(4, 343) = 23.184, p < 0.001. Tests of between-subjects effects showed that increases in authoritarian parenting were significantly associated with increases in anger, F = 35.16, p < 0.001, depression, F = 44.95, p < 0.001, suicide ideation, F = 76.14, p < 0.001, and conduct problems, F = 22.69, p < 0.001. Thus, the data fully supported Hypothesis 1.

Our second hypothesis stated that gender would moderate the effect of the relationship between parenting and adolescents' psychological adjustment and conduct problems such that the association between authoritarian parenting and conduct problems would be greater for boys than girls, whereas the association between authoritarian parenting and anger, depression, and suicide would be greater for girls than boys. We conducted regression analyses to examine the extent to which gender, authoritarian/authoritative parenting (centred variable) and the interaction of these variables (cross-product term) predicted anger, depression, suicide ideation, and conduct problems. Results replicated the effects above showing a main effect for increases in authoritarian parenting being associated with increases in all dependent variables. Results further showed a main effect for gender wherein boys, compared with girls, reported significantly higher scores on all dependent variables, t _s (357–418) = 2.23–397, p _s  < 0.05). Results also indicated that gender moderated the effect of authoritarian parenting on conduct problems, t(357) = 2.15, p < 0.05, but not on the psychological dimensions. To solve for the interaction effect, we compared the effects for boys and girls and found that while both boys (t = 10.28) and girls (t = 6.96) evidenced strong associations between authoritarian parenting and conduct problems (both slopes were significantly different from zero), the association was significantly greater for boys than for girls (see Figure 1). Specifically, at low levels of authoritarian parenting, there was no difference between boys' and girls' reported level of conduct problems. However, at high levels of authoritarian parenting, boys reported significantly greater conduct problems than girls.

Figure 1 Mean reported conduct problems as a function of gender and authoritarian parenting behaviours.

Our final hypothesis stated that adolescents' agreement with their parents' parenting behaviours would moderate the association between authoritarian parenting and adolescents' psychological and conduct problems such that less agreement with parenting behaviours would be related to increased association between authoritarian parenting and psychological and conduct problems. Regression analyses similar to the ones conducted above showed that, in addition to the main effect for authoritarian parenting that was indicated above, agreement moderated the association between authoritarian parenting and anger, t(373) = 2.74, p < 0.01, and between authoritarian parenting and depression, t(371) = 2.20, p < 0.05. To solve for the interaction effect, we examined the effects of authoritarian parenting on anger and depression at low and high levels of agreement (one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively). Results showed that for both low (t = 25.97, p < 0.001) and high (t = 23.66, p < 0.05) levels of agreement with parenting behaviours, increases in authoritarian parenting were significantly related to increases in anger; however, this effect was significantly stronger when adolescents ‘disagreed’ with parenting behaviours (see Figure 2). Specifically, at low levels of authoritarian parenting, there was no difference between children who agreed or disagreed with their parents' behaviour on reported anger. However, at high levels of authoritarian parenting, adolescents who disagreed with their parents' behaviour reported significantly greater anger than peers who agreed with their parents' behaviour.

Figure 2 Mean reported anger as a function of authoritarian parenting and agreement with parenting behaviours.

Similarly, results indicated that at low (t = 22.52, p < 0.001) and high (t = 23.27, p < 0.01) levels of agreement with parenting behaviours, increases in authoritarian parenting were significantly related to increases in depression, but this effect was significantly stronger when adolescents disagreed with parenting behaviours (see Figure 3). A main effect for agreement was also found for conduct problems, such that greater disagreement with parenting behaviours was associated with greater conduct problems.

Figure 3 Mean reported depression as a function of authoritarian parenting and agreement with parenting behaviours.

Discussion

The study investigated the association between dimensions of Jamaican adolescents' perceived parenting behaviours and adolescents' psychosocial outcomes. As hypothesised, adolescents who perceived their parents as more authoritarian were also more likely to report more psychosocial problems. However, as expected, the relationship between authoritarian parenting and negative psychosocial outcomes did not exist for all child–parent relationships. As revealed from Hypothesis 2, authoritarian parenting adversely affected both girls and boys; but for boys in particular, more authoritarian parenting was associated with greater conduct problems. Our final hypothesis showed that adolescents who reported low agreement with their parents' parenting style were more likely to report greater psychological symptoms than those who reported high agreement. More importantly, when adolescents disagreed with parenting behaviours that were more authoritarian, they reported greater anger and depression.

The finding regarding authoritarian parenting and adverse outcomes are consistent with much of the pertinent findings from western societies (for example, Baumrind, 1991, 2005; Milevsky et al., 2006; Querido et al., 2002), but, to a large extent, incongruous with findings from non-western and/or more traditional societies (Dwairy et al., 2006; Elias & Yee, 2009). Furthermore, the findings appear to challenge the common assumption that culturally sanctioned parenting behaviours are unlikely to produce problematic child outcomes (Nsamenang, 1992; Russell et al., 2010). Recent cross-cultural research (for example, Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007) suggests a trend toward universality regarding the negative effect of authoritarian parenting, even in cultures where that style is deemed normal (Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007). Those new findings have prompted a strong debate about the effects of globalisation on cultural socialisation processes. For example, Gigli (2004) argued that the proliferation and globalisation of media are increasingly shaping and defining the thoughts, attitudes, and values of children and adolescents across the globe in unprecedented ways. Gigli contended that while access to multi-media choices (e.g., cable and satellite television, the Internet) serve to broaden people's outlook through information, it simultaneously threatens cultural identification and values, as evidenced by the decreasing role of traditional sources of influence such as family, school, and religion. Hence, the assumption regarding the effects of modernity on contemporary adolescents' perceptions, attitudes, and interactions might be plausible in the Jamaican context. What in the past might have been viewed as appropriate parenting is now publicly discredited and deemed inappropriate by child advocates. Accordingly:

[Jamaican] children have begun to argue with parents and want to be treated like their peers in America. They [children] can recite the UN [United Nations] Convention on the Rights of the Child and parents are at their wits' end when it comes to disciplining their children these days. (N. Gordon, personal communication, 5 January 2012)

Undoubtedly, Jamaican adolescents have access to modern technology and (uncensored) information. In 2008, information and technologies data (Hamilton, 2010) showed that 87% of Jamaican households had a television, and there were 56.88 Internet users per 100 inhabitants and 100.58 cell phone subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Research aimed at assessing the impact of technology on Jamaican adolescents' perceptions and thoughts about family processes would be prudent.

Role of gender

The moderating role of gender in the relationship between authoritarian parenting and child outcomes, although expected, is noteworthy. Boys were more adversely affected by authoritarian parenting than girls; for boys, increased authoritarian parenting was associated with greater conduct problems. As noted earlier, like many societies worldwide, Jamaican children are socialised along gender lines (Smith & Mosby, 2003; USAID, 2005; UNDP, 2009) and those disparate patterns have been advanced as the primary reason Jamaican girls seem to be better adjusted than boys (UNDP, 2009). Perhaps close monitoring and supervision lead girls to be better prepared to handle routine and responsibility than boys, a dynamic that has been attributed to the differential educational outcomes for boys and girls: girls' outperform their male counterparts at every level of the Jamaican education system (UNICEF, 2008; UNDP, 2009. Conceivably, lax supervision of boys may increase their vulnerability to peer pressure and provide greater opportunity for involvement in delinquent activities. Strict monitoring of girls may keep them ‘out of trouble’ and promote better overall socio-emotional well-being.

Even if the foregoing associations are plausible, the direction of those associations is uncertain. Does authoritarian parenting lead to conduct problems or do conduct problems draw more punitive discipline from parents? In other words, could it be that boys' bad behaviours elicit harsher punishment or is it that boys behave badly because parents treat them harshly? In the same vein, perhaps girls, for the most part, ‘stay out of trouble’ and elicit less punitive measures that engender better outcomes. One study (Meeks-Gardner, Powell, & Grantham-McGregor, 2007, p. 38), found that more aggressive Jamaican boys ‘received more beatings and other punishments at home’ than the control group. However, their study, like ours, could not ascertain the direction of the relationship. Nonetheless, it may be instructive to know that the highest interpersonal mortality rates in Jamaica are among male youth (aged 19–29 years) and the ratio of males to females perpetrators of major crimes is 49:1 (UNDP, 2009). More research is needed to investigate the developmental trajectory of Jamaican children and adolescents as it relates to differential gender socialisation practices. In the current sample, there was no evidence that adolescents received differential parenting from parents as a function of the adolescents' gender, t(430) = 0.02, p = 0.98). Future researchers should examine this dynamic more closely by ascertaining adolescents' thoughts and opinions on differential socialisation as a function of gender. More sophisticated designs are needed to assess the pathways of the associations reported here.

Adolescents' agreement

Our data showed that when adolescents reported low agreement with their parents' parenting style, they were more likely to experience greater internalising problems (i.e. anger and depression). This idea of ‘disagreement’ with parents' style may be similar, in theory, to the notion of perceived parental rejection. A series of studies (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002) found that punitive parental discipline, a key feature of authoritarian parenting, was associated with adverse child outcomes when children perceived the punishment as parental rejection. In our study, elevated authoritarian parenting was associated with poorer outcomes, but when adolescents disagreed with their parents' approach, internalising outcomes were significantly worse. This finding is significant because low warmth and high levels of rejection by parents have been shown to predict problematic functioning in adolescents (Armistead, Forehand, Brody, & Maguen, 2002). It is plausible that the high levels of physical and verbal hostility purportedly meted out to Jamaican children and adolescents (Brown & Johnson, 2008; Smith et al., 2011) may cause them to perceive and internalise parents' harshness as lack of love and rejection. Past studies (for example, Ge, Best, Conger, & Simons, 1996) have shown parental hostility toward adolescents to be a robust predictor of problematic functioning. Conversely, parental warmth and involvement protect offspring against psychosocial difficulties. However, their study, like ours, did not assess adolescents' perceptions of parental acceptance or rejection; it merely asked whether they agreed with their parents' style of parenting.

Limitations of the study

Our study, albeit exploratory, is valuable because it not only helps to alleviate the dearth of research on family processes in the Jamaican setting, but also extends the literature on parenting and parent–child relationships in general. However, several limitations are evident. First, our data did not allow for the delineation of family socio-economic status. Therefore, we could not determine whether socio-economic status moderated the effect of parenting on adolescent outcomes. The extant literature has suggested that less affluent parents tend to employ more punitive parenting strategies compared with their more affluent counterparts (Smith & Green, 2007), so whether the outcomes for Jamaican adolescents would be different as a function of socio-economic status needs further study. However, many of the prevalence studies on Jamaican parenting have shown strict and repressive (i.e. authoritarian) parenting to be typical across socio-economic levels (Brown & Johnson, 2008). Second, our data utilised adolescents' self-report without independent validation, which might have introduced an element of reporter bias. Adolescents may not have accurately reported their experiences and their perceptions might have differed from other sources of information (e.g. parents). However, Brown and Johnson (2008) found a high degree of agreement between Jamaican adolescents and their parents on pertinent disciplinary issues (e.g. corporal punishment). Moreover, it is the adolescents' experiences within the family that are critical to understanding their emotional representation of those experiences and their impact on adjustment. Thus, it is not the experience per se that results in the outcome, but how the experience is interpreted and internalised (Ripoll-Nunez & Rohner, 2006). Third, the parent–child relationship is embedded in a complex web of social networks and exigencies that interact to either promote or stifle development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Our data did not assess other pertinent contextual factors that might affect family processes. For example, the reportedly high rates of domestic and community violence in the society that might affect families' emotional climate and functioning (Smith & Green, 2007; UNICEF, 2008) were not included in this study. Therefore, more research is needed to tease out the relative contribution of various contextual factors (e.g. socio-economics, parent and child characteristics, family and community conflict) on children's adjustment and functioning. Fourth, the study warrants replication to increase confidence in the findings presented here. A study that includes a qualitative component would be beneficial. Having adolescents assess and explain the contexts in which they live and talk through their perceptions, and feelings about events could lead to a better understanding and interpretation of the quantitative data. In addition, including parents' views in future research would be prudent.

Finally, the cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal, design of the study prohibited the examination of reciprocal relationships between parenting and child adjustment. Therefore, we cannot make inferences about directionality or causality. Undoubtedly, the parent–child relationship is complex, dynamic, and bidirectional. Parents' behaviours on children's behaviours are as important as children's influence on parenting (O'Connor & Scott, 2007). Only more sophisticated methods (e.g. path analyses) could provide such information.

In conclusion, the findings presented here suggest that less authoritarian parenting may provide psychosocial benefits for Jamaican children and adolescents. In all areas of adjustment assessed, when adolescents reported their parents as less authoritarian they were also more likely to report better socio-emotional functioning. Therefore, for boys and girls alike, reducing authoritarian parenting may lead to fewer psychosocial problems. However, boys may need special attention. Given that boys' reported significantly more conduct problems than girls in the context of authoritarian parenting, finding ways to increase authoritative parenting practices could lead to significant reductions in boys' behavioural problems. In light of these findings, social policies aimed at educating parents about the potential detrimental effects of certain parenting behaviours on child outcomes are needed. Therefore, public education, parenting training, and other family intervention programmes are warranted. Indeed, the efficacy of parenting education programmes has been established; they not only provide critical information to families about the developmental needs of children, but also help families learn how to meet those needs (Smith & Mosby, 2003). According to Ricketts and Anderson, intensive parent education strategies will help parents ‘… recognize that their own interaction patterns with their children are at the core of healthy child development’ (2008, p. 74).

="1">Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the Graduate School, the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences, and the Department of Child and Family Studies at University of Tennessee, Knoxville. We wish to thank Dr Sheila Barrett for her assistance with data collection. We are also grateful to the administration and students of the schools from which the data were collected for their participation in the study. We appreciate the editorial help provided by Ms Milicia Tedder and Ms Kamella Carmino.