Research on an authoritative school climate has established that it is related to lower levels of bullying (e.g., Cornell, Shukla & Timothy, 2015; Gerlinger & Wo, 2016; Gregory et al., 2010). In addition, studies on authoritative classroom leadership find that authoritative leadership prevents bullying (e.g., Roland & Galloway, 2002). To the best of our
Theoretical framework
knowledge, no study has investigated the authoritative teacher’s response to, or intervention in cases of bullying.
The concept of an authoritative teacher style is based on the theory and research regarding four different parental styles introduced by Baumrind (1971). When studying the authoritative teacher, both Norwegian and international studies reference research carried out by Baumrind (e.g., Ertesvåg, 2011; Walker, 2009; Wentzel, 2002).
The concept of warmth is described by Baumrind (2013) as the emotional warmth and supportive actions being attuned to the vulnerabilities, inputs and thoughts of the child in addition to supporting the child’s plans and individual needs. The concept of control is today described by Baumrind as demandingness which includes two related components: monitoring and control. Monitoring is described as the adult providing structure, order and predictability in the child’s life.
Control refers to what shapes the child’s behavior in addition to what restrains the child’s potentially disruptive behavior (Baumrind, 2013).
The third paper of this thesis refers to the concept of control, however, I have chosen to use the concept of demandingness in the surrounding material as this term gives a more full-bodied description of the concept.
Originally the two dimensions of warmth and control defined the four styles. Baumrind (2013) emphasizes the importance of perceiving warmth and demandingness as two separate dimensions:
“misunderstanding of parental authority and of the authoritative construct is fostered when parental control and warmth are represented as opposites of the same continuum rather than as two independent dimensions” (Baumrind, 2013, p. 13).
Theoretical framework
To describe how these two dimensions are not a part of the same continuum, but two separate dimensions Baumrind presented the different styles using a well-known figure.
Figure 2. Different teacher styles
This figure describes how the 4 different styles relate to the dimensions of warmth/responsiveness and demandingness/control (Baumrind, 1971).
The authoritative parenting style, which is high in control and high in warmth, has been found to be associated with the best outcomes for children (Chan & Koo, 2011; Baumrind, Larzelere & Owens, 2010;
Steinberg, 2001). The authoritarian style, which is low in warmth and high in control, could, according to research, result in increased aggression and resistance in children (Nordahl et al. 2003). Children who
Theoretical framework
are exposed to an indulgent style, high in warmth and low in control, often exhibit low self-reliance and low self-control (Baumrind, 1991).
The neglectful style, which is low in warmth and low in control results in the most negative outcomes, including high levels of aggression, low self-esteem and impulsive behavior (Baumrind, 1991).
After presenting the parenting styles in figure 2, Baumrind has also added three styles in the recent years: democratic, directive and good enough as few parents seem to fit the prototypes (Baumrind, Larzelere
& Owens, 2010). However, research regarding these styles is rather scarce, especially regarding teachers and this would therefore have to be a subject for future research. This could also be styles that could be interesting to study regarding for instance cultural differences in the future.
Although Baumrind’s conceptualization of parenting styles has been very influential, some questions may remain unanswered. Darling and Steinberg (1993) presents concerns regarding, how ethnic differences can affect authoritativeness on children’s development, and on what empirical basis one draws conclusions regarding the most appropriate parenting style. Smetana (1994), points out that the theory is too general and context free, as the choice of parent style could depend on the situation one is in. Sommer (1996) also points to the importance of modifying the categories and not using them as stereotype characteristics. A second issue that has been pointed out is that there are competencies within both the parent and the child that have not been accounted for in the research such as the consequences for the modern child growing up in an authoritative family with reconciled decision making (Sommer, 1996). A third issue could be that the child as a contributor is greatly underestimated by Baumrind (Sommer, 1996).
A fourth issue is how Baumrind presents her categories of parenting styles as non-ideological based on a paradigm that could be associated with some limitations, as parenting styles could be conditioned by
Theoretical framework
history and culture (Sommer, 1996). Previous research has examined cultural differences regarding parenting styles, reporting inconsistent results. Some studies find that the authoritarian parenting style is associated with better GPA scores for Asian and African American pupils than the authoritative parenting style (Dornbush, Ritter, Leiderman, Robert and Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn and Dornbusch, 1991). Sorkhabi and Mandara (2013) point out that these findings are wrongly interpreted by many researchers to mean that the authoritarian parenting style is the optimal style for certain groups.
Several studies also find evidence for the authoritative parenting style being the most beneficial also for Asian children (e.g. Ang, 2006;
Florsheim, 1997; Garg, Levin, Urajnik & Kauppi, 2005; Kim & Chung, 2003). This is a topic that could have been discussed more in depth;
however this thesis is not looking into cultural differences and this will therefore not be further examined.