In the article Parenting and Perceived Maternal Warmth in European American and African American Adolescents by Julia Jackson-Newsom and her colleagues (2008), the authors examine the major “assumptions of parenting style framework concerning the links between specific parenting practices and perceptions of parenting warmth”ť (Jackson-Newsom et al., 2008, p. 63). They examine European American, Asian American and African American parents. It has been found that there are certain ethnic differences in the link between perceptions of parenting warmth and parental control practices. For example, Asian American adolescents have more positive attitude towards strict parental control practices than European American adolescents. The most common style among Asian and American families is authoritarian parenting style. Ethnic differences in the effects of parenting can be explained by cultural differences. In fact, parental beliefs are “part of parent’s cultural scripts for parenting that may give explanation to the effects of parental control or warmth across different ethnic groups”ť, according to Russel et al. (2010, p. 127). These differences account for differences in parenting in my own experiences. I know that authoritative parenting relates more consistently to Hispanic and European American children and adolescents than to African American and Asian children and adolescents. I had a chance to witness authoritarian parenting in a Hispanic family, in which parents were concerned with laws and order. The father in this family followed the traditional style of authority and tried to keep his family under control. He criticized, threatened his children, and made demands. The effect of authoritarian parenting style in this family led to negative consequences for the children: low self-esteem, immaturity, lack of confidence, and lack of independence. I will try to follow authoritative parenting style as I am sure that it is necessary to be respectful and supportive of the child’s autonomy and personality.
In the research conducted by Raley and Wildsmith and described in the article Cohabitation and Children’s Family Instability, the researchers have the primary and secondary goals. The primary goal of the researchers is “to estimate how much children’s family instability is missed when they do not count transitions into and out of cohabitation”ť (Raley & Wildsmith, 2004, p. 211). Instability stands for additions and exits of mother’s partners. The secondary goal of the researchers is “to examine the early life course trajectories of children, in part to see whether children who experience maternal cohabitation face more family instability than children who do not”ť (Raley & Wildsmith, 2004, p. 211). The authors decided to focus their research in these two areas because they wanted to better understand why most children in cohabiting families experience poorer outcomes than children in two-parent or single-parent families, and how much family instability is missed when children experience constant changes in the structure of the family. As a rule, children in cohabiting families often demonstrate problem behavior and experience decreased emotional well-being. The authors of the research not only investigated to role of cohabitation in family instability, but also proved the fact that a substantial amount of family instability is missed. This fact means that cohabitation leads to high level of family instability and negative consequences for children. It has been found that “among children born to mothers less than 30 years old, adding transitions into and out of cohabitation increases our measure of family instability by 30% for White children and over 100% for Black children”ť (Raley & Wildsmith, 2004, p. 211). This research helps to better understand the importance to have a two-parent family structure.Â Â