Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






international collaboration

A general ideas preliminary of the project was discussed at the XX World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) in Luxembourg,2012. An initial intent to participate in this research, prepared and realised under our guidance, has been expressed by researchers (teams) from Finland, USA, Italy, Spain, Israel and the Ukraine. This offers a possibility of gathering extensive data and preparing unique publications.

 

Full description of the project:

1. Research project objectives/hypothesis

The research takes into account two features of intrafamilial relations experienced in childhood, both of which play a significant role in the intensity and forms of readiness for interpersonal aggression in young adults. The first feature consists of childrearing practices, understood here as a set of specific actions (punitive, aggressive, and affirmative) employed by parents with the goal of preventing the child from exhibiting unwanted behaviour. The other feature consists of so-called parenting style, defined as relatively stable patterns of parental behaviours and attitudes displayed in the area of controlling the child’s behaviour and influencing the level of emotional warmth.

Part I of the research is designed to achieve descriptive and diagnostic goals, especially establishing: - differences and similarities between child rearing practices and parenting styles in Poland, Finland, USA, Spain, Italy, Israel and the Ukraine, with special focus on corporal punishment; - differences and similarities between patterns of readiness for interpersonal aggression among young adults from the participating countries, as well as the extent to which child rearing practices, parenting styles and readiness for interpersonal aggression are connected with the family’s socioeconomic status.

Part II will focus on analysis and interpretation, especially looking to ascertain:- whether and to what extent child rearing practices and parenting styles employed by the mother and the father can be construed as predictors of various forms of readiness for interpersonal aggression; - whether and to what extent readiness for interpersonal aggression is influenced by experiencing corporal punishment in childhood as opposed to other child rearing practices, both punitive (such as deprivation of privileges) and affirmative (such as explaining and demonstrating correct behaviour); - whether and which parenting styles can be construed as protective factors or risk factors for developing a readiness for interpersonal aggression. Based upon the collected data and comparative analyses, the researchers will prepare a model of dependencies and relationships between the above mentioned aspects of socialisation experiences and the intensity of various forms of readiness for aggression.

In light of the above described project goals, the following research hypotheses have been formulated:

(a) A high level of readiness for interpersonal aggression is the result of having experienced



punitive rearing practices in childhood (especially corporal punishment and psychological aggression), as employed by the mother and father who use an autocratic (authoritarian) or liberal-nonloving (neglectful) parenting style. Hither to research shows that childhood experiences of corporal punishment are account for a 17% variance in the occurrence of aggressive behaviour. This shows that any research into the relationship between corporal punishment and aggressive tendencies should focus on looking for the moderators of this relation.

We hypothesise that the moderator of the relationship between childhood corporal

punishment experiences and readiness for aggression is the parenting style,which determines the child’s perception and interpretation of punishment. Corporal punishment received in the context of emotional distance (within the autocratic or liberal-nonloving style /authoritarian or neglectful) generates a sense of rejection by the parents, which according to the results of many research projects constitutes a basic condition for developing aggressive attitudes and tendencies (Huesmann and Eron,1986). We hypothesise that in the context of emotional warmth (within the democratic and liberal-loving style /authoritative and indulgent/), the child’s perception of corporal punishment is directed primarily towards discovering, understanding and absorbing the relationship between the irownin correct behaviour and the consequences thereof.

(b) Experiencing both affirmative and punitive child rearing practices (excluding child

abuse) employed by the mother and father in the context of a democratic or liberal-loving (authoritative or indulgent) parenting style limits the occurrence of readiness for aggression. We hypothesise that emotional warmth displayed by parents plays a more significant role in the child’s socialization against aggression than the level of controlling the child’s behaviour, which is high in the democratic style and, conversely, low in the liberal-loving style (indulgent). If the child experiences love and acceptance, even in a situation where the expectations are not clearly communicated, appropriate attitude and behaviours are developed through observing adults with whom the child has an emotional connection. The formulated hypothesis corresponds with the traditional dichotomy of child rearing strategies put forward by Sears(1957), who defined the love-oriented strategy and the object-oriented strategy, where the former leads to the development of better self-control and self regulation.

(c) The personality-immanent readiness for aggression develops as a result of experiencing

aggressive child rearing practices employed by the mother and father with in the liberal-nonloving (neglectful) parenting style. This style generates a developmental context in which there is apronounced lack of both emotional warmth and clearly communicated expectations. There sulting sense of emotional rejection, further reinforced by corporal punishment, activates needs related to a positive self-image. Children brought up with in the liberal-nonloving (neglectful) style exhibit a weak degree of norm internalisation, which in turn may result in fulfilling those needs via aggressive behaviour. This may lead to the development of an immanent need for aggression, in which case aggressive behaviour functions as a source of satisfaction and higher self-esteem, thus becoming instrumental in the perception of the self.

(d) The habitual-cognitive readiness for aggression develops as a result of experiencing

corporal punishment metedout by autocratic (authoritarian) parents; this applies especially to parenting techniques employed by fathers and the influence of these aspects of intrafamilial socialisation by sons. Harsh discipline exercised by a father towards his son constitutes an element of modeling and leads to internalising particular behavioural patterns and scenarios, which in turn results in the development of a high level of habitual-cognitive readiness for aggression.

(e) The emotional-impulsive readiness for aggression develops as a result of experiencing

aggressive child rearing practices (both corporal punishment and psychological aggression), especially when applied to fathers raising daughters in an autocratic (authoritarian) manner. Harsh discipline at the hands of the father results in the daughter experiencing negative emotional states such as frustration, anxiety and anger, which form the basis of the emotional-impulsive readiness for interpersonal aggression.

Both this and the preceding hypothesis stress the consequences of the father’s parenting

style and child rearing practices, as opposed to the mother’s; the team’s previous research shows that it is the father’s aggressive disciplining behaviours, rather than the mother’s, which constitutes the source of risk factors for the development of readiness for aggression in both sons and daughters.

 

2. State of the art:

2.1. Child rearing practices and psychosocial development

Child rearing practices are a set of specific actions employed by parents with the goal of

eliciting desired behaviour from the child, as defined by the parents’ standards and expectations (Spera, 2005;Dominiak,Frączek,Konopka,2012).Huesmann and Eron (1986) define three basic categories of these practices: - punishment (in various forms, with varying intensity);- rejection (manifesting disapproval of the child’s behaviour and/or possessions); - care and concern (fulfilling the child’s important needs, caring for the child’s physical and mental well-being).

Research on the influence of child rearing practices on children’s development and

behaviour tends to focus on explaining the psychodevelopmental effects of punishment and child abuse. This project will focus on the first of the above mentioned categories (Bjorkqvist, 2012; Sears, Maccoby,Levin, 1957; Straus, Maouradian,1998; Straus, Stewart, 1999). Even though the consequences of power-assertive discipline are within the scope of interest of the research community, researchers do not currently agree whether and to what degree childhood punishment–especially corporal –can be considered responsible for problems arising in psychosocial adaptation in various developmental stages (Gershoff, 2002; Baumrind,Larzelere,Cowan,2002). A meta-analysis of 88 research projects on the effects of corporal punishment, which have been carried out in the space of the last 50 years has shown that while psychosocial consequences of corporal punishment are invariably negative, they manifest in different manners in children and adults (Gershoff, 2002). Children subjected to harsh discipline at home exhibit internalizing problems while adults who have had similar experiences in childhood exhibit a higher degree of externalizing problems. This pattern is clearly visible in high negative correlation coefficients for the relation between corporal punishment and children’s mental health; on the adult sample, the correlation is similarly negative, but the coefficients exhibit significantly lower values.

Among adults, childhood experiences of corporal punishment show the strongest

correlation with manifestations of aggression, criminal behaviour and antisocial tendencies. On the other hand, results of several research projects show that corporal punishment can also have relatively positive consequences, comparable to other, less repressive child rearing methods (Larzelere and Kuhn,2005). Results of empirical research (Bjorkqvist, 2012) also signal a third possible consequence of experiencing corporal punishment – children disciplined in this manner can become victims of bullying in their peer group.

Another crucial, but seldom researched aspect of the relationship between corporal

punishment and the child psychodevelopmental achievements is the context of meting out and receiving punishment, which includes but is not limited to such factors, as the parent’s emotional agitation, whether the disciplining action has been planned or whether the punishment is characterised by consistence. Disciplineas exerted by parents can be broadly categorised into impulsive punishing and instrumental punishing (Gershoff,2002). The latter is defined as corporal punishment employed in a planned, controlled and calm manner. The former is punishment meted out as the result of a temporary loss of control, occurring in a state of emotional distress. Instrumental punishment occurs more often as an element of a relatively stable and repetitive repertoire of disciplining methods employed by parents. As a result of employing this type of discipline, the child’s experiences relating to punishment are coherent; what is more, children accept them more easily when they can learn when and for what misdemeanour they can expect a spanking or other unpleasant consequence. A random occurrence of corporal punishment, metedout when the parent loses control of their behaviour, means that the child is unable to correctly predict the parent’s reaction, which results in anger or anxiety. It turns out that experiencing impulsive punishment, as opposed to instrumental punishment, leads to negative psychodevelopmental consequences in adulthood, among them a high degree of antisocial and criminal behaviour (Straus and Mouradian, 1998).A crucial aspect of research on the relation between corporal punishment and the development of disadaptive behaviour and attitudes is the ratio of corporal punishment to other child rearing techniques. Hitherto empirical studies have seldom accounted for the effects of various combinations of disciplining methods. The only exception is the research carried out by Larzelere and his team (Larzelere, 1986; Larzelere, Merenda, 1994; Larzelere, Sather, Larson, Pike, 1998 in: Gershoff, 2002). The results of their research show that corporal punishment constitutes an effective measure preventing unwanted behaviour in children; additionally, the results show that the use of verbal aggression is sufficient to influence the child’s developmental trajectory and increase the probability of antisocial, aggressive or criminal behaviour in adulthood.

In conclusion, when discussing the current state of knowledge pertaining to the relationship

between child rearing practices and the child’s psychosocial development, especially developing aggressive tendencies, it needs to be noted that hitherto empirical research focused excessively on corporal punishment alone, without taking into account the context of meting out such discipline and its ratio to other child rearing techniques. This project includes other aspects of childhood intrafamilial socialization experiences; this inclusion constitutes a necessary prerequisite for determining psychodevelopmental consequences of corporal punishment and creating a model of intrafamilial protective and risk factors for the development of patterns of readiness for interpersonal aggression.

2.2 Parenting styles and psychosocial development

The concept of parenting styles is often used in research on the relationship between

socialization in the family and psychosocial development, including the development of aggressive tendencies. A parenting style is understood as arelatively stable pattern of

behaviour and attitudes exhibited by the parents towards the child, and can bedefined in terms of two basic dimensions (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby and Martin,1983; Darlingand Steinberg, 1993; Garciaand Gracia, 2009). The first dimension pertains to the intensity of emotional warmth in the mother-child and father-child dyads. The second dimension concerns the level of controlling the child’s behaviour; this control can pertain solely to moral issues, as is the casein the democratic style,or to all areas of the child’s life, including for example the child’s choice of friends, as happens in the autocratic style (Smetana,2010).

 

The most widely accepted classification includes four parenting styles: the authoritarian

style (high level of control, high level of warmth), the autocratic style (high level of control, low level of warmth), the permissive style (low level of control, high level of warmth) and the neglectful style (low level of control, low level of warmth). In Poland, a classification of parenting styles and a tool for their measurement was developed by Maria Ryś(2004), who distinguishes the following styles: democratic (authoritative), autocratic (authoritarian), liberal-loving (indulgent) and liberal-nonloving (neglectful). The democratic style

(authoritative) is characterized by a positive bond between family members, based on kindness and trust, as well as a limited level of control exerted upon the child, a preference for persuasion rather than repression as a discipline method and including the child in the process of making decisions concerning planned actions and problem-solving. In the autocratic style (authoritarian), parents place more value on precisely defining their expectations towards the child rather than on fulfilling the child’s needs of fosteringgood interpersonal relationships between family members. The liberal-loving (indulgent) and liberal-nonloving (neglectful) are characterized by the common feature of granting the child considerable autonomy and promoting spontaneous development; what is more, parents employing these styles do not present the child with explicitly stated duties and rules of acceptable behaviour. The two styles differ in the emotional warmth dimension; while the liberal-loving style (indulgent) is characterised by a significant intensity of care and love, the liberal-nonloving style (neglectful) manifests itself in indifference and emotional distance.

Most of hitherto empirical research had been carried out on chosen samples in the USA.

The results show that the authoritative style (in Ryś’s terminology – democratic) is optimal for the child’s proper psychosocial development. Children brought up according to the authoritative style grow up to become independent, kind, assertive and team-oriented in the social sphere (Baumrind, 1971), whereas in the cognitive-motivational sphere they tend to have better school grades and a higher motivation level in comparison to children brought up in other styles (Maccoby and Martin,1983). The issue of psychosocial achievements Exhibited by children brought up according to the autocratic (authoritarian) style is less clear-cut, especially taking into account empirical data from other than Anglo-Saxon socio-cultural backgrounds or focusing on children who do not have a middle-class background, but come from ethnic minorities or families of a lower socioeconomic status. Research carried ou tby Quossand Zhao(1995) shows that in China, the autocratic style(authoritarian) is a positive predictor of a child’s high level of satisfaction derived from the relationship with parents. In terms of the child’s mental health,the autocratic style turned out to be relatively desirable in the Arab culture (Dwairy, Achoui,Ahouserie,Farah,2006). Research on the influence of the parenting style on motivation and school achievements shows that the autocratic style (authoritarian) experience and in childhood tends to correlate with a higher level of engaging in learning activities and higher school grades among children from families of a low socioeconomic status (Leung, Lau and Lam, 1998; Hoff, Laursen and Tardif, 2002).

In the context of the child’s psychosocial functioning, the status of the permissive style

is even more ambiguous than that of the autocratic style. On the one hand, permissive upbringing means allowing the child to exhibit a wide array of behaviours, some of which may not conform to social norms. On the other hand, the permissive style may co-exist with a high level of emotional warmth in the child’s relationship with the parents, which in turn fosters the internalisation of correct social behaviour via modeling and identification. This is corroborated by the results from the Spanish sample, which show that experiencing permissive parenting methods in childhood correlates with such components of psychosocial adjustment as alow hostility level, high self- esteem and low level of emotional ability (Garcia and Gracia,2009). Similar results, also showing positive effects of experiencing a liberal-loving (indulgent) parenting style on attitudes towards interpersonal aggression, were achieved in the Polish sample (Dominiak, Frączek, Konopka,2012). The results show that such childhood experiences lead to a lower level of approval for aggression in the social sphere.

In conclusion, the results of hitherto research show that the significance of a particular

parenting style for the psychosocial adjustment of adolescents varies according to normative and cultural standards. The international scope of the project can thus be of great of importance, since it will help verify the widespread belief that the democratic (authoritative) style is superior to other parenting styles in terms of the child’s psychosocial adjustment.

2.3. Readiness for aggression

The concept of readiness for interpersonal aggression (Frączek,2002) focuses on

intrapsychic mechanisms forming the basis of aggressive behaviour, which put sit out side of the traditional framework of research on aggression. Readiness for aggression is understood as a particular sets of processes and psychological structures, which forms the necessary intrapsychic condition for aggressive actions (Frączek, 2010). Based on both hitherto literature and own research, the team distinguishes three types of readiness for aggression: (a) emotional-impulsive; (b) habitual-cognitive; (c) personality-immanent.

(a) Emotional-impulsive readiness for aggression can be defined as easily generated

anger and a lack of appropriate emotional control. Emotional-impulsive readiness is responsible for the frequency and quality of aggressive reactions, and it is activated by provocation (harmful stimuli, frustration). Aggressive behaviour is in this case highly automatic (with a limited influence of cognitive processes) and is thus related to such properties of a person’s temperament as emotional reactivity and impulsiveness (Smulczyk, Frączek, Grzegołowska-Klarkowska, 2009).

(b) Habitual-cognitive readiness for aggression is tied to particular habits and

behavioural scenarios, as well as a person’s beliefs stemming from their social and/or professional role. This type regulates the frequency, intensity and quality of aggressive behaviour occurring habitually or as a reaction to the perceived tasks and requirements set by the given social role. Aggressive behaviour manifests it self usually in planned actions, which are regulated by cognitive processes, although with a sufficiently high internalisation level these can also be executed automatically.

(c) Personality-immanent readiness for aggression is defined as a constant need for

aggressive behaviour and harming others. In this case both the aggressive action it self and observing its consequences function as a source of satisfaction. Since aggression plays the role of positive reinforcement, the person actively searches out situations where the need for aggressive behaviour can be fulfilled. Results of empirical research show a clear link between personality-immanent readiness for aggression and psychoticism scale (PEN Eysenck’s, Smulczyk, Frączek, Grzegołowska-Klarkowska, 2009).

Hitherto empirical research on readiness for aggression focused primarily on identifying

gender-based differences. Traditional studies on aggression hypothesise that men are more aggressive than women, although this difference pertains mostly to physical and direct aggressive behaviour (Anderson, Bushman,2002; Oestermanet al. 1998; Hess, Hagen, 2006; Mussweiler,Förster, 2000). Pilot studies dealing with patterns of readiness for interpersonal aggression (N=1113,age15-59) show that women exhibit a higher level of emotional-impulsive readiness, whereas men exhibit higher levels of habitual-cognitive and personality-immanent readiness (Frączek,2012). Samples of adolescents from Spain, Uruguay and USA yielded similar results, with women exhibiting a higher level of emotional-impulsive readiness for aggression (Frączek, Ramirez,Lai-Chu, Grzegołowska-Klarkowska, Konopka, Smulczyk 2009; Frączek, Rutkowska, Konopka, Ramirez, Millana, 2009, Rajchert, Huesmann, Frączek, 2011).

This project is designed as a continuation of previous research; taking into account the

context of socialisation, including child rearing practices and parenting styles, will allow the researchers to describe and compare the path so development to particular forms of readiness for aggression in various socio-cultural and socioeconomic circumstances.

2.4 Significance

Research on the relation between intrafamilial socialisation experiences during childhood and later psychosocial functioning, especially developing aggressive tendencies, has a long tradition (Pettit, Bates,Dodge,2006;Patterson,Debaryshe,Ramsey,1990,Bandura & Walters, 1968,). In the above section on hitherto published literature we have tried to show that this research is excessively analytic and focuses primarily on the correlation between corporal punishment(often not differentiating between spanking and child abuse) and psychosocial development, while not accounting for the context of meting out/receiving punishment, either in psychological terms of the child-parent relationship or the wider normative and cultural background. This research aims to measure both child rearing practices and parenting styles in correlation with intrapsychic mechanisms of aggressive behaviours, as opposed to merely their forms and intensity. This constitutes an entirely new approach to psychological research on interpersonal aggression. What is more, the participation of renowned researchers from countries with various historical and cultural traditions as well as differing socioeconomic circumstances will allow the team to verify if and to what degree the assertions functioning in hitherto published literature can be viewed as universal. Research results and knowledge pertaining to the circumstances under which antisocial behaviour and attitudes are developed (including various forms of readiness for interpersonal aggression) constitute a cognitive basis for both explaining socially dysfunctional behaviour and developing preventive and corrective measures contributing to the welfare of society.

2.5 Work Plan

The first step of the project will consist of preparing measurement tools in all necessary language versions. The Readiness for Interpersonal Aggression Inventory has already been translated into English, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew and Ukrainian; a Finnish version has not yet been prepared. There maining questionnaires need to be translated and adapted according to appropriate methodological standards, as well as subjected to psychometric verification.

The second step will consist of collecting data in all participating countries. The project is designed to include at least 200 young adults respondents from each participating country. Based on data collected from 1400 adults, the third step will consist of the following: - of the distribution of particular child rearing practices and parenting styles in all seven countries;

- defining similarities and differences in patterns of readiness for aggression in all seven countries, taking into account the respondents’ gender and socioeconomic status;- determining the role of child rearing practices and parenting styles in regard to the intensity of various forms of readiness for aggression in all seven countries, with special focus on experiences centring around corporal punishment; - determining the influence of consilience and/or complementarity of the mother’s and father’s child rearing practices and parenting styles on the development of patterns of readiness for interpersonal aggression; - creating a model of intrafamilial protective and risk factors for the development of various types of readiness for interpersonal aggression and verifying the universal applicability of the model, regardless of the socioeconomic status.

The final step will consist of publications in Polish and international scientific journals and presentations on Polish and international scientific conferences.

2.6 Research Methodology

After the final verification of the tools and the procedure, the empirical data will be collected from samples of 200 young adults aged18-24 from each of the participating countries (1400 respondents altogether).The choice of this particular age bracket stems from ananalysis of developmental factors; young adults have already completed the tasks of adolescence and defined their own identity, abandoning experiments with problem behaviours. At the same time, they have relatively clear memories of the attitudes and rules prevalent in their family, as well as disciplining methods employed by their mother and father, which is crucial due to retrospective nature of research.

Measurement of child rearing practices

Child rearing practices will be diagnosed with the Retrospective Inventory of Child Rearing Practices developed on the basis of the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI) proposed by Straus and Fauchnier (2005-2011; Polish and English versions attached). A Polish version DDI has been prepared (translation into Polis hand back translation) and a study has been conducted on a sample of 200 young adults in order to assess the factor structure of the Inventory. Three factors have been distinguished, which correspond with three subscales:

- the first subscale measures the level to which the mother and father employed aggressive child rearing methods to correct the child’s bad behaviour. Aggressive methods consist of two types of discipline, i.e. corporal punishment and psychological aggression, such as emotional black mail. An example of a questioning this subscale is: How often did your parents hold back Affection by acting cold or not giving hugs or kisses? It must be noted that all questions pertaining to corporal punishment are designed to measure so-called „ordinary spanking”, not child abuse. The Cronbach’s alpha value of this subscale’s reliability is α=.85.

-the second subscale pertains to punitive child rearing methods, including such techniques as withdrawing privileges, ignoring the child and forcing the child to undertake actions meant to repair or alleviate the consequences of bad behaviour and/or fulfilling tasks set as punishment. The Cronbach’s alpha value of this subscale’s reliability is α=.83.

- the third subscale measures affirmative child rearing methods, indicated by the frequency of explaining and demonstrating correct behaviour as are action to the child transgressing a set norm. The Cronbach’s alpha value of this subscale’s reliability is α=.66.

The respondents will be asked to indicate, for a five-level item, the frequency of their parents’ employing a particular disciplining technique as a reaction to the respondents’ violating a particular standard of behaviour at the age of around 12.

Measurement of parenting styles

Parenting styles will be measured with the Retrospective Questionnaire of Parenting Styles developed by Maria Ryś (2004 Polish and English versions attached). The tool consists of 34 items pertaining to the parents’ behaviour and attitudes to wards the respondent at the age of around 12. The concept of the parenting style, as present in this questionnaire, is based on the four styles distinguished by Maccoby and Martin(1984). This allows for the measurement of the intensity with which the democratic, autocratic, liberal-loving and liberal-nonloving styles were employed in the family. The respondents will be asked to indicate their answers for a four-level item, ranging from „definitely yes” (3 points) to „definitely no” (0 points). Because this measurement is retrospective in character, the respondents will also be allowed to indicate a fifth answer („I can not tell”, 1.5 points) .Each of the respondents can achieve a maximum of 30 points for each style. It is also possible to measure the consilience of the parenting styles exhibited by the mother and the father; this consilience is considered high when the difference between the parents in a given style is less than 5 points.

Measurement of readiness for aggression

The three types of readiness for aggression (emotional-impulsive, habitual-cognitive, personality-immanent) will be measured with the Readiness for Interpersonal Aggression Inventory (Frączek, Konopka,Smulczyk,2008; Polish and English versions attached). This tool under went psychometric verification both on a large sample of adolescents and young adults in Poland an don purposive samples of adolescents in Spain, Uruguay and HongKong, achieving highly satisfactory indicators of accuracy and reliability. Additionally, the research will take into account the following socio-demographic variables: mother’s education, father’s education, family’s economic status (income), place of residence (number of inhabitants) and nationality.

3.7 Expected results justifying resource requirements

The collected data will be analysed both within the scope of the participating countries as well as comparatively. There search will form a basis for empirical articles prepared for international publication and presentations prepared for international conferences. The final result of the project will be a collective monograph, published in English, which will include both the specific data collected during the project as well as a model showing the role of childhood intrafamilial relationships in the development of various types of readiness for aggression.

 

References:

Bandura, A., Walters, R.H. (1968). Agresja w okresie dorastania. Wpływ praktyk wychowawczych i stosunków rodzinnych. Warszawa: PWN.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(No.1, Pt.2)

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R.E., Cowan, P.A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment. Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Builletin,128, 580-589.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do Girls Manipulate and Boys Fight?.Developmental Trends in Regard to Direct and Indirect Aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K. (2012). Corporal punishment as an antecedent to victimization and perpetration of aggression and bullying in school setting. Referat wygłoszony na XX th ISRA World Meeting, Luxemburg.

characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 55-70.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,113, 487-496.

Dominiak-Kochanek, M., Frączek, A., Konopka, K. ( 2012). Styl wychowania w rodzinie a aprobata agresji w życiu społecznym przez młodych dorosłych. Psychologia Wychowawcza (w druku).

Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., & Farah, A. (2006). Adolescent-family connectedness among Arabs: A second cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 248-261.

Frączek, A. (2002). O naturze i formowaniu się psychologicznej regulacji agresji interpersonalnej. W: I.Kurcz, D. Kądzielowa (red.), Psychologia czynności. Warszawa: SCHOLAR.

Frączek, A., Domniak - Kochanek, M., Rutkowska, M., Grzegołowska - Klarkowska, H. (2009). Socio - moral Approval of Aggressive Behaviors among Polish Adolescents. Referat wygłoszony na 28th CICA International Conference, Bodrum, Turkey.

Frączek, A. (2010). Agresja interpersonalna: opis i analiza z perspektywy psychologii społecznej. W: Jurasz-Dudzik, Ł. Człowiek i agresja głosy o nienawiści i przemocy. Ujęcie interdyscyplinarne. Warszawa: Sic! s. 43-55

Frączek, A., Konopka, K., Millana, L., Ramirez, M.J.(2009). Sex and Age Related Differences in Readiness for Interpersonal Aggression (Polish – Spanish Comparative Study). Referat zaprazentowany na konferencji: Workshop Aggression Berlin, Listopad 2009

Garcia, F.G., Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44, 173, 101-131.

Gershoff, E. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experience: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-578.

Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting.

W: M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of

parenting (2nd ed.. Vol. 2, pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Huesmann, R.L, Eron, L (1986). Television and the Aggressive Child: A Cross-national Comparison . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc Publishers.

Larzelere, R.E., Kuhn, B.R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary practices. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1-37.

Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology, 44, 157-172.

Maccoby, E.E., Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. W: P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (red.), Handbook of child psychology : Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (s.1-101). Ney York: Wiley.

Patterson, G.R., Debaryshe, B., Ramsey, E. (1990). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A. (2006). Supportive parenting, Ecological Context, and Children's Adjustment: A seven-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 68, 908-923.

Rajchert, J. (2012). Style rodzicielskie a mechanizmy regulacji zachowań agresywnych w Polsce i USA. W: H. Grzegołowska-Klarkowska (red.), Agresja, Socjalizacja, Edukacja, (s.305-327). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo APS.

Ryś, M. (2004) Systemy rodzinne. Metody badań struktury rodziny pochodzenia i rodziny własnej. Centrum Metodyczne Pomocy Psychologiczno-Pedagogicznej.

Quoss, B., Zhao, W. (1995). Parenting styles and children's satisfaction with parenting in China and the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 265-280.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of Child Rearing, Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL

Smetana, J.G. (2010). Adolescents, families, and social development. How teens construct their worlds. Wiley-Blackwell.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.

Straus, M. A., Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children. Archives of Pediatrics&Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767.

Straus, M.A., Mouradin, V.E. (1998). Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behavioral Science&Law, 16, 353-374.

 

 


Date: 2015-12-11; view: 1041


<== previous page | next page ==>
Research project objectives/hypothesis | Infrastructure barrier to shale development cycle
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.02 sec.)