“Because I said so!” Ariel yelled at her youngest when he asked why he had to go to bed. In the office the next morning, Ariel mentioned to Susan that she felt bad for how she had reacted. To Ariel this was authoritarian-style parenting and anathema to how nearly every developmental scientist believes a good parent should behave.
Susan didn’t see it that way. “You said it was bedtime and it was bedtime. What’s so bad about that?”
For over 50 years scholars have relied on a taxonomy of parenting styles that sorts parents into buckets labeled authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, or neglectful based on how they interact with their children. If Jamie lies, does his mother punish him, put him in time out, or let it go? If Emma does a good job sharing, does her father ignore it or praise her?
The idea of parenting styles has been so embedded in the thinking of scientists, parents, and educators alike that we took it for granted.
The idea of parenting styles originated in 1960s discussions about child-rearing, and the taxonomy aimed to identify the basic elements of successful parenting. In the ensuing decades, the idea that one of these styles produced accomplished, socially competent kids, while the others did not, took root in the academic literature and the popular imagination. The authoritative style was the clear winner.
Whereas the authoritarian parent is akin to a dictator in the parent-child relationship, the authoritative parent is supportive and tuned in to their child, sets clear rules and expectations (and follows through on them), and applies flexible, nonpunitive consequences to rule breaking and noncompliant behavior. The idea that authoritative parenting is the best parenting continues to dominate popular advice as well as developmental psychology. But there is one key problem.
The morning Ariel complained to Susan about being too authoritarian, something crystalized for us. The idea of parenting styles has been so embedded in the thinking of scientists, parents, and educators alike that we took it for granted. Labeling parenting styles implied that researchers could forecast how kids raised with different types of parents would turn out. But the problem was that there was little compelling causal evidence that one style was better than another. In fact, we did not even have a consensus about objectively measuring different styles. And we lacked evidence about how to help parents adopt and sustain a new style of parenting. We had been lulled into a false sense of understanding of one of the fundamental pillars of society.
As social scientists, the realization that we, both as parents and as society, are drawing conclusions about something as consequential as child development with little basis in evidence is a call to action. So we set out to help find out scientifically what parent behaviors, rather than style, matter most for children’s success.
The realization that we, both as parents and as society, are drawing conclusions about something as consequential as child development with little basis in evidence is a call to action.
Raising a child is fundamentally a series of decisions, big and small, made every day that sum to the thing we call “parenting.” Whether it’s getting your child to school, reading to your child, or helping them learn math, parents constantly make decisions that affect their children. We decided to focus our research on how parents make decisions about their children and what decisions matter the most.
What we’ve found is that in most situations, parents generally know what decisions they ought to make. In our surveys, parents tell us that they know that reading books will improve their children’s reading skills and that spending time doing math activities will improve their child’s math skills. Parents also say that they find joy and meaning in spending time with their children during these activities. The problem is that some parents chronically make decisions about their child that are out of step with what they know is beneficial for their child and say they want to do.
This is both good and bad news. The bad news is that parents, when making decisions about their kids, are subject to the same cognitive barriers that often prevent us from making optimal decisions in other areas of our lives, from our finances to our fitness. We can be shortsighted, influenced by present bias, and swayed by things like stress, distraction, and mood. The stakes are high when we fail to make the best decisions about our money or health, but they’re even higher when we fail to do so as parents. Parents are decision makers whose choices are far-reaching both for individual human development and collective societal well-being.
The good news is that it is possible to help parents close the gap between their intended and actual decisions. For instance, we know we can help parents follow through on their intentions by first helping them recognize they are making decisions all the time that have a long-run impact on their children’s future. Framing parenting as a series of important decisions shifts parents’ focus from the personal dynamics or style of their interactions with their child to the decisions they make for their child.
Parents are decision makers whose choices are far-reaching both for individual human development and collective societal well-being.
Parents should know that perfection is not the goal, and it is not going to ruin their children if they occasionally skip dinner for dessert, go to bed without brushing their teeth, or miss out on extra math for a movie. Admittedly, our kids have eaten neon cereal straight from the box in lieu of lunch, and we’ve skipped the book reading for the night because we could not stand to read Hop on Pop one more time.
Rather, it is what we as parents do with regularity that matters the most. With that in mind, we can work to find out which behavioral tools support parents in setting and meeting goals for their decisions. When reminders are effective and when they’re not. Who planning prompts help the most and why. When bedtime means “now” and when that boundary can be porous.
As our lab and others continue to research what matters for children’s success, we can keep Ariel’s aha moment in mind. Scientists are humans too, and when it comes to parenting, we are subject to the same cognitive barriers and biases as everyone else. We can be captivated by comfortable narratives rather than rigorous evidence, and we can fail to follow through too often on what we know is in our children’s best interest. The science, like children, and like parents, is a work in progress.
This article first appeared in Behavioral Scientist’s award-winning print edition, Brain Meets World.
