Every adult involved in a child’s upbringing aims to strike a balance between personal demands/interests and those of society, between what the adult wants and what “we” (society) want. Parents are often inclined to treat their children as a possession to which they have full rights. Sometimes, by thinking of themselves as owners of this “possession,” they forget that their primary responsibility is to take care of it, to guide the child in a certain direction, and to provide more than just clothing or toys- namely emotional security and a suitable education (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
Different types of parents have existed since ancient times. We can mention here overprotective parents, who excessively shield the child and do not allow them to act independently; neglectful parents, who are incapable of establishing a relationship based on genuine feeling with their children; and authoritarian parents, who limit children’s freedom of choice, decision-making, or independence in certain situations. However, the most important point is that parents teach their children how to behave in a range of contexts. Not only do they impose limits on their children’s behavior, but they also teach basic social rules, such as not interrupting someone who is speaking (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Each parent differs in the way they choose to raise their children, which is why understanding parenting styles- and their respective advantages and disadvantages- is of great importance. They can be described in terms of broad dimensions, or personality traits that represent stable aspects of the parent’s behavior. These aspects remain unchanged regardless of the situation, creating a characteristic parent–child interaction (Holden & Miller, 1999). From this interaction arise two dimensions of parental behavior: warmth/responsiveness shown to the child, and control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In the first dimension, on the one hand, there are parents who are open to their children, offering them the warmth and affection they need. They are involved in their children’s lives, respond to their emotional needs, spend most of their time with them, listen attentively to what their children have to say, notice when they are upset, try to find out the reason, and cheer them up. On the other hand, there are parents who are relatively uninvolved and sometimes even hostile in their relationship with their child. These parents often seem more concerned with their own needs and interests than with those of their children, do not listen to what the child wants to tell them- considering it a waste of time- and pay little attention to the child’s emotional states.
The second dimension of parental behavior is control. Some parents act like dictators and try to control everything their child does; others apply very little or no control in raising their children, leaving them free to do as they please, without asking for parental permission or worrying about their parents’ reactions (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001). The approach most beneficial for the child is a balanced level of control, and when this is combined with parental warmth, four parenting styles emerge, as identified by Diana Baumrind (Figure 1), which have a major influence on the child’s development.
It should be noted that these styles do not appear in a “pure form.” A person may combine two parenting styles, depending on their personality, circumstances, mood at a given moment, or the stage of the child’s development (Edward F. Zigler, Matia Finn-Stevenson, 1993). Additionally, the child may have two parents who employ different styles- for instance, the mother may be indulgent while the father is authoritarian. These styles vary from one family or individual to another, depending on a number of factors. In the following section, the parenting styles identified by Baumrid, with their main advantages and disadvantages, will be presented.
THE AUTHORITARIAN STYLE
The authoritarian parenting style combines a high level of control with a low level of warmth (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). A parent who adopts this style gives the child a series of rules and expects strict obedience. The child is expected to show respect and submission, and any deviation is accompanied by punishment. Likewise, the parent believes that no explanation must be given for their actions, and the smallest mistake is always sanctioned. Consequently, the parent-child relationship tends to be fraught with conflict in such cases, as any attempt by the child to assert independence is interpreted as a “form of rebellion.” In most situations, the parent is detached and distant from the child, imposing a set of principles based on respect for effort and hard work. The child confronted with this parenting style is disciplined and respectful- toward those whom they fear- and may develop into a “perfectionist” with excessive critical tendencies (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
Nevertheless, there are several disadvantages of this parenting style, which directly affect the child, who often ends up with a very low level of self-esteem and overall unhappiness (Silk et al., 2003). This child can be characterized as perpetually dissatisfied, unable to communicate effectively, lacking in initiative or courage, unforgiving of those who make mistakes, easily angered, and vulnerable to stress (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
THE INDIFFERENT STYLE
This parenting style features neither control nor warmth. Parents who adopt this style try to minimize time spent with the child, avoid becoming emotionally involved in the relationship, and show little concern for the child’s achievements (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). The child feels neglected, learns that their opinion has no importance, and sometimes is spared any responsibility. As in the case of an authoritarian upbringing, such a child may experience low self-esteem, become easily intimidated, and constantly feel inferior to others, believing they are incapable of doing anything well enough to please their parents. Unlike a child raised in an authoritarian setting, who is guided by imposed rules, the child raised in an indifferent environment relies solely on personal life experience and, as an adult, will be forced to seek advice about how to behave in certain situations (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001). Sometimes such a child is aggressive, and academic performance may suffer due to the lack of parental involvement (Aunola et al., 2000; Barber & Olsen, 1997).
THE PERMISSIVE STYLE
Parents who use this style tend to interact positively with the child without imposing punishment, accepting the child as they are, thus creating a warm, friendly relationship. These parents provide the necessary warmth but do not enforce limits, with control at a low level (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). As a result, the child is free to do as they please, without the imposition of specific rules or restrictions. The parent often consults the child when making a decision that directly affects them, shows warmth and interest in the child’s activities, and the child in turn enjoys freedom of choice, an element that helps them develop a unique identity and a strong, original personality. Being consulted when decisions are made gives the child a sense of importance, which automatically boosts self-esteem, a crucial factor in the child’s personality development (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
Nevertheless, too much freedom can occasionally be detrimental. The child will find it difficult to abide by rules or respect certain limits when necessary, potentially becoming a “problem child” for the adults who interact with them. In extreme cases, the child may attempt to take control of the family, trying to make the parents do whatever they want and being willing to use any means to achieve their goal (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
THE DEMOCRATIC STYLE
These parents explain the rules and encourage parent-child communication, providing the child with the warmth they need while also exercising authority. Baumrind (1991, p. 62) describes them as assertive but neither intrusive nor overly restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are more supportive than punitive. They want their child to be assertive in turn, socially responsible, cooperative, and capable of self-control. This appears to be the most effective parenting style because parent-child interactions are full of warmth and affection, and they use positive reinforcement to correct the child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
However, they are also willing to employ punishment if the situation calls for it, explaining the reasons behind such measures. For these parents, unlike authoritarian parents, rules are not more important than the individual; rather, the individual is more important, and imposing rules is somewhat flexible (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
The democratic style is considered the most suitable because it integrates elements of the other previously mentioned styles. Parents who adopt this style to raise their child are sufficiently indulgent, flexible, and even authoritative when necessary to impose discipline, teaching the child to complete assigned tasks successfully and follow rules, without taking things to extremes (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
A child raised with this style adapts best socially, tends to be energetic, competent, friendly, responsible, and achieves higher grades in school (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Aunola, Stattin, & Nurmi, 2000).
THE PROTECTIVE STYLE
Within Baumrind’s classification, this style seems most similar to the democratic style, characterized by high parental involvement and significant control. However, differences soon become apparent: the parent’s involvement is excessive, viewing the child as a very fragile being who constantly needs maximum security, support, and protection. Such a parent conveys their own fears to the child, teaching them to be cautious and reserved about everything beyond the family. This excessive protection is a major drawback, as every negative event is perceived as a catastrophe or calamity. Parents are always worried; when the child cries, they become agitated, and the parent-child relationship is fraught with tension. At a young age, children may experience sleep problems or unjustified fears, becoming dependent on their parents. The child is not allowed to explore the surrounding environment independently, always fearing that something bad might happen. Additionally, the child may have difficulty communicating with the parents about their problems, concerned they will not be understood and that the parents will only worry further. Over time, the child may start to hide important information regarding their own development (Dolean Ioan & Dacian Dorin, 2001).
Each parenting style has its advantages and disadvantages. Culture, ethnicity, economic status, or even the child’s gender appear to have a strong influence on the parenting style adopted by parents. Socioeconomic status, in particular, seems to have a major impact on the parenting style used by fathers. The father is often seen as the head of the family and its main provider; consequently, work obligations occupy much of his time, keeping him away from the child and causing a rift in the parent-child relationship. Numerous studies have focused on gender differences in the parent-child relationship, revealing that the mother-daughter bond is generally closer than the father-daughter one (Steinberg, 1987). These studies have explored parent-child relationships in four specific dyads: mother-daughter, father-son, mother-son, father-daughter (Dornbusch, 1989)- highlighting that mothers tend to be closer to their children than fathers and more engaged in child-rearing. Of course, this claim can be debated, as today we have seen a change in this regard, with fathers growing considerably more involved in raising their children.
It should be noted that a parent cannot adopt a single style in raising their child; thus, one cannot declare a mother to be authoritarian simply because she did not buy a toy the child wanted, or a father to be indulgent because he gave in to his daughter’s pleas and bought her a doll. A person may adopt a parenting style that combines characteristics from all four parenting styles identified by Baumrind (1991), each one being applied at the appropriate time. Ideally, there should be a balance between warmth and control, ensuring an environment conducive to the child’s development, although this “optimal amount” of control or warmth varies from one culture to another (Goodnow, 1992).
SEPARATION ANXIETY
Over time, numerous definitions of anxiety have been proposed, yet all seem to revolve around a set of key concepts such as “state of unease,” “danger,” “undesirable situation,” “fear,” or “anguish.” A more detailed definition appears in the Larousse Dictionary of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopathology (1998, p. 66), describing anxiety as “a state of unease in which the perception prevails that, although generally undefined, the situation could turn out to be unpleasant or even dangerous.”
Similar to adults, children can experience generalized anxiety or anxiety related to specific objects or situations. Once a child starts kindergarten or school, these environments often become the primary triggers of anxiety. One of the most noticeable fears during the early years is separation anxiety. This type of anxiety typically manifests as crying, accompanied by other distress, driven behaviors when a person to whom the child is strongly attached leaves.
After putting forth theories on “castration anxiety” and “superego anxiety,” Freud highlights that anxiety represents an individual’s response to the risk of losing something that belongs to them, known as “object loss” (Freud, 1926).
Researchers interpret separation anxiety in cognitive terms. They argue that separation anxiety – or the distress caused by separation – represents the child’s response at the moment they are separated from a parent or caregiver to whom they are strongly attached. These reactions often lead to reduced physical activity, with the child resorting to crying and whining when separated (Tennes & Lamp, 1964).
It is important to clarify the difference between anxiety caused by separation and anxiety caused by strangers. While a child’s response may look similar in both cases, and both can occur during childhood, anxiety triggered by strangers stems from the child not recognizing the person’s face – something unfamiliar that induces fear. In explaining separation anxiety, researchers use a cognitive process known as object permanence. For example, a child whose mother leaves can still think of her even though she is physically absent. The problem arises because the child cannot understand where she went or whether she will return, causing the separation anxiety. This phenomenon diminishes considerably as the child grows older and can understand that, even though the mother has gone, she will come back.
Mahler (1975) views this type of anxiety as a normal occurrence in child development. He discusses a “rapprochement subphase” that every child goes through around 18 to 24 months of age. When an infant begins to recognize their mother- usually between the second and third month of life- the recognition occurs symbiotically, without the ability to distinguish the self from others. Gradually, starting around the fourth or fifth month, the child begins to differentiate from others, which Mahler et al. (1975) describe as the child’s struggle toward psychological individuation. This subphase signifies the child’s progressive disengagement from the mother, gaining what might be termed “roots of independence,” a stage characterized by increasingly intense demands for contact- resources the child becomes aware of and uses to the fullest.
Separation anxiety is primarily linked to the child’s progress toward an independent self, a process inevitably intertwined with the mother’s (or primary caregiver’s) absence. In most cases, this figure is not genuinely “lost” but is no longer perceived by the child as sharing the same mind or being (Benjamin B. Wolman, George Stricker, 1994).
CAUSES AND MANIFESTATIONS
According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, separation anxiety can be defined as “the child’s fear or worry associated with being separated from a parent or another significant person” (Elizabeth Pantley, 2001). Human beings are “programmed” to react to fear, stress, or danger through a “fight or flight” response. However, this fundamental response is inaccessible during early childhood when a child cannot protect themselves. Instead, children rely on adults for protection. Thus, the usual “fight or flight” response is replaced by an intense need to keep parents or caregivers close for security. The more the child feels stressed or scared, the more they want to stay near protective adults. This phenomenon can be observed when a child is placed in a stranger’s arms, must adapt to a new situation, or is tired or sick (Elizabeth Pantley, 2001).
The central feature of separation anxiety is the experience of unrealistic and excessive anxiety about separation from or the anticipation of separation from a primary attachment figure (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000). Separation anxiety does not have a specific “cause.” It is a normal and vital stage in a child’s mental and emotional development that cannot be entirely prevented. Most children go through certain aspects of separation anxiety at some point in their lives. For some, it may appear at just a few months of age; for others, it may begin later. In some cases, it lasts briefly and resolves quickly, while in others, it can persist for a longer period, recede, and then often recur. There is no single behavioral pattern for this disorder; however, a range of symptoms may arise depending on the child’s age (Elizabeth Pantley, 2001).
When this disorder appears, it signifies that the child is beginning to develop intellectually: they have learned they can influence those around them by expressing their needs and do not have to readily accept a situation that feels uncomfortable or distressing. Yet, they still lack sufficient understanding- such as realizing that a parent will always return even if they leave, or that other adults with whom they remain can provide the protection they need just as effectively as the parents.
No parent can predict exactly when separation anxiety will appear. The duration or intensity of each sign or symptom varies and depends on various factors, such as the constant availability of a secondary attachment figure with whom the child shares a close familial or emotional bond, how familiar the setting or situation is, the number and quality of previous separations, cultural norms, daily routines, the child’s temperament or personality, and the parenting style adopted (Elizabeth Pantley, 2001).
Separation anxiety symptoms vary, but certain characteristic behaviors signal its onset. These include “clinging” to the parent; crying when the parent is out of sight; a strong preference for one parent over anyone else; fear of strangers or family members the child rarely sees; resisting separation at bedtime; waking up in the night crying and calling for a parent; regressing to an earlier stage of development (e.g., thumb-sucking, toilet-training accidents); and anxiety that fades quickly when the relevant parent reappears (Elizabeth Pantley, 2001).
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF ANXIETY
Kenneth Kendler and colleagues (1992) carried out a research project on the influence of genetic and environmental factors in anxiety disorders. They concluded that heredity plays only a minor role in the onset of anxiety disorders. Nevertheless, they identified a set of genes that predispose individuals to anxiety disorders and found two factors that affect their onset. Concerning environmental factors, the researchers stress that they have a primary role in triggering anxiety disorders.
Anira Thapar and Peter McGuffin (1995) conducted a study involving 376 twins and their parents. They found that if both parents transmit anxiety, the child’s risk of developing it increases significantly, and if twins are raised in the same family, their anxiety levels are likely to be quite similar.
Later, Jeffrey Gray (1981, 1987) proposed a new theory to identify the neurobiological factors involved in triggering anxiety. The “theory of extraversion” posits that two systems control behavior: the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), which is activated by rewards and in the absence of punishment, and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), which activates in response to “punishment-conditioned stimuli.” In introverted individuals, the BIS is more sensitive and activates in uncertain situations, whereas in extraverted individuals, the BAS is more sensitive. Inhibition is felt physiologically, characterized by increased heart rate and breathing rate. Of course, the exact experience of inhibition varies from person to person based on individual traits and age.
CLINICAL PRESENTATION OF SEPARATION ANXIETY
The diagnostic criteria for separation anxiety are based on excessive anxiety experienced by the child upon being separated from primary attachment figures or from the home environment. In most cases, an individual suffering from this disorder faces “recurring, excessive distress” at the time of separation (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
The child constantly wants to know where the attachment figure has gone, what they are doing, when they will return, and seeks to maintain continuous contact with them. Some children become very sad or homesick when away from home and the people they believe can provide the protection they need. They strongly wish to return home and may daydream about that moment. In children, this fear involves the idea that their parents will not come back for them, that they might get lost, or that they will never be together again. They often feel uncomfortable leaving the house and going to unfamiliar places, which can lead to a refusal to leave home. Additionally, they may be unable to stay alone in a room, adopting “clingy” behavior toward their parents- like a “shadow,” following them around the house and asking them to remain nearby at all times.
They also commonly experience difficulties at bedtime. They may ask their parents to sleep with them or at least stay in the room until they fall asleep, and they may wake up during the night and go to their parents’ bed or that of an older sibling. When separation does occur, somatic symptoms (Figure 2) may arise, such as stomachaches, nausea, and vomiting. Adolescents may also experience palpitations, fainting spells, or dizziness (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Sometimes these symptoms are exaggerated to attract attention or delay separation (Eisen & Kearney, 1995).
Children who experience separation anxiety typically come from families that are highly emotionally close. When a child is separated from someone to whom they are strongly attached, they may feel sad, struggle to concentrate, and become socially withdrawn. Preschoolers and younger school-aged children may exhibit various fears- of animals, thieves, monsters. These fears arise from the way the child perceives such threats, believing they endanger their family’s unity. Younger schoolchildren may refuse to attend school, while preschoolers might refuse to go to kindergarten, sometimes resorting to hitting the person forcing the separation or “clinging” to a parent. Such episodes can lead to family conflicts, with these children often described as demanding or “attention seekers,” making excessive requests that become a “source of parental frustration.” However, they can also be conscientious, eager to please and be accepted by others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
The prevalence in the general population is 3-13% among children (Anderson, William, McGee, & Silva, 1987; Bird et al., 1988; Cohen, Cohen, & Brook, 1993) and 1.8–2.4% among adolescents (Bowen, Offord, & Boyle, 1990; Cohen et al., 1993; Fergussen, Horwood, & Lynsky, 1993; McGee, Feehan, Williams, & Anderson, 1992). The onset of this disorder is most common between the ages of 7 and 12 (Compton, Nelson, & March, 2000; Last, Perrin, Hersen, & Kazdin, 1992) and can decline during middle adolescence or young adulthood. It frequently appears after stressful events, such as the loss of a close relative or friend. It can begin as early as preschool age and up to age 18, though cases of separation anxiety in adolescence are rare. Separation anxiety- or the drive to avoid it- may persist for several years, with periods of remission and relapse (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
A set of signs and symptoms can be used to diagnose this disorder in a child. If at least three of these are observed, it could indicate separation anxiety. The individual may experience excessive distress upon separation from or anticipation of being separated from an attachment figure or the home; persistent, excessive fear related to possible harm befalling primary attachment figures; persistent, excessive fear of events that could lead to permanent separation from the parent; refusal to attend school/kindergarten or other places because of separation; fear and refusal to remain alone in any place without the attachment figure; refusal or opposition to go to bed alone without the attachment figure present until the child falls asleep; refusal to sleep anywhere other than their own home; nightmares centered on separation; and somatic complaints (e.g., stomachaches, nausea) during or in anticipation of separation. The duration of these symptoms must be at least four weeks to warrant a diagnosis of separation anxiety, and onset must occur before the age of 18. Moreover, these manifestations must cause clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or other important areas of functioning and cannot be attributed to another mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
CULTURAL, AGE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Since every child or individual is unique, anxiety manifests differently from person to person. Various factors influence the emergence of anxiety- hereditary elements, as noted above, and environmental factors such as family, culture, education, or socioeconomic status. It is also essential to consider the person’s individual characteristics, such as gender and age, which strongly affect the presence or absence of anxiety and its manifestations. Oltmanns & Emery (1998) identify a range of gender differences in anxiety presentations. These differences involve how females respond to stressful situations compared to males, who appear to have a slight advantage in this regard. The authors also point out hormonal and neurotransmission differences that play a crucial role in defense mechanisms during extreme stress, leading to a higher anxiety level (Sims & Snaith, 1988).
Additionally, cultural socialization practices lead to different perceptions of certain events; for example, some may be deemed more dangerous for females. Studies conducted with children show that separation anxiety varies between boys and girls, with anxiety symptoms being more common in females (Silberg, Rutter, & Eavens, 2001). Nevertheless, clinical studies indicate that separation anxiety is equally frequent in males and females, while epidemiological samples show it is more prevalent in females than in males (Cohen et al., 1993; Francis et al., 1987; Last, Perrin, Hersen, & Kazdin, 1992).
From a cultural standpoint, there are differing views on how well separation is tolerated. Many cultures place strong emphasis on tight family bonds, perceiving the family unit as an interconnected whole grounded in robust interpersonal relationships. Therefore, it is vital to distinguish between separation anxiety and the unwavering value these cultures place on interdependence among family members (Barrett et al., 2000).
Age is another crucial consideration when examining how separation anxiety manifests. Preschool-aged children do not explicitly express fears about their own safety or that of their primary attachment figures, but as time passes, these fears evolve and are experienced as imminent dangers. Separation and its anticipation become more evident in middle childhood. Adolescents- particularly boys- often deny such symptoms exist, but they can be observed through limited activity engagement and refusal to leave home. In adults, separation anxiety can hinder attainment of key life milestones, such as getting married, and limit their ability to address current problems, impeding self-fulfillment. Such adults often center their attention on their own children or spouse and experience discomfort whenever they are separated from them (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
CONCLUSIONS: STUDIES INVESTIGATING SEPARATION ANXIETY AND PARENTING STYLES
While many researchers still endeavor to understand the mechanism that triggers separation anxiety, others strive to identify the risk factors that facilitate its emergence. A great deal of recent research focuses on the relationship between the parenting style experienced by the child and the onset of distress surrounding separation from the primary attachment figure.
One such study, conducted in 2009 by Sakineh Mofrad, Rohani Abdullah, and Bahaman Abu Samah, sought to demonstrate a significant correlation between a parenting style characterized by overprotection and children exhibiting symptoms of separation anxiety, as well as between parental rejection and the onset of separation anxiety symptoms. Their findings confirmed the first hypothesis- namely, that there is a significant correlation between the two variables (overprotection and the emergence of separation anxiety symptoms). Moreover, they observed that among mothers, excessive protection correlated more strongly with higher levels of separation anxiety symptoms in children than it did among fathers. Regarding the second hypothesis, however, the researchers did not uncover a significant correlation between parental rejection and the appearance of separation anxiety symptoms. They also attempted unsuccessfully to establish a significant correlation between overprotection and rejection by the parent.
The authors of this study concluded that exaggerated parental protection plays a major role in triggering separation anxiety because it leads to “unhealthy” thoughts in certain situations and impairs the ability to avoid danger (Rapee, 1997). This indicates intrusive parental actions meant to intensify closeness and the bond between parent and child- such as restricting the child’s engagement in activities requiring independent action and implementing unnecessary oversight. Such actions cause heightened distress and demands from the child, hindering the development of independent behaviors and essentially infantilizing them (Parker and Lipscombe, 1981). Furthermore, the child is confined to a restricted environment with few opportunities to improve self-regulation and coping mechanisms. Consequently, the child may repeatedly claim that they are incapable of performing a specific task, at which point they ask for their parents’ help. All these limitations will later trigger symptoms of this disorder and perpetuate it over time, given that children dependent on their parents experience a higher level of fear regarding separation from family or home than do other children (Eisen & Schaefer, 2005).
Another recent study investigating the connection between the parent–child relationship and the onset of separation anxiety was conducted by Bryce D. McLeod, Jeffrey J. Wood, and John R. Weisz (2007). Through a meta-analysis, they identified two dimensions of parenting styles that are differentially associated with separation anxiety: rejection and control. With respect to control, the study found a moderate effect on the emergence of this disorder’s symptoms, and this correlation was stronger than in the case of rejection, which proved to be insignificant, echoing the findings of the earlier study. These discoveries suggest that excessive parental control may play a particularly important role in the development of separation anxiety, either as a cause or as a parental response to the child’s own anxiety or the parent’s anxiety (Fox et al., 2005; Rapee, 2001; Wood et al., 2003). The authors note that when parents fail to allow their child age-appropriate opportunities to explore their environment independently, the child may not develop self-efficacy, increasing their vulnerability to threats and anxiety (Chorpita and Barlow, 1998; Wood, 2006). Furthermore, upon witnessing their child’s high levels of anxiety, parents often make even more decisions on the child’s behalf, an excessive exercise of control. The authors consider their findings supportive of theoretical models affirming the importance of parental control in the development, maintenance, and alleviation of childhood anxiety disorders, though these findings do not clarify the “direction” of the effects or the specific processes involved.
They also identified five subdimensions of the two parenting styles they examined- control and rejection: warmth, assertiveness, resistance, overinvolvement, and autonomy. These subdimensions were variably associated with child anxiety in general, not necessarily separation anxiety. Explaining their decision to categorize parents based on these two constructs (control and rejection), the authors argue that these dimensions encompass what is most relevant across all parenting styles.
In summary, this study aimed to uncover a relationship between parenting styles and childhood anxiety. Although they did succeed in establishing such a connection, it appears to be modest, with the causal mechanisms of this relationship remaining elusive.
Another study by Jeffrey J. Wood, Bryce D. McLeod, Marian Sigman, Wei-Chin Hwang, and Brian C. Chu (2003) zeroes in on contemporary models of childhood anxiety and parenting styles. They mention that researchers investigating the relationship between parenting styles and childhood anxiety must keep in mind two core concepts: multifinality and equifinality. Multifinality indicates that a single risk factor- parental control, for example- can generate a variety of outcomes for a child, largely dependent on context. Equifinality holds that multiple pathways can lead to childhood anxiety, and a single risk factor such as parenting style is insufficient on its own to trigger anxiety disorders. After reviewing a number of studies on the correlation between parenting styles and childhood anxiety, the authors emphasize that there are no definitive conclusions, as this research area is constrained by various uncontrollable factors in the child’s environment, not just the parents’ chosen parenting style. What is clear, however, is that excessive parental control correlates with shame and an increased probability of anxiety symptoms. This correlation ranged from moderate to clinically significant. In terms of future research, they advocate moving beyond correlational studies toward methodologies that can establish the direction of the effects of these parenting styles on the child- and, by extension, on childhood anxiety symptoms- and recommend experimental methods aimed specifically at these outcomes.
Reviewing these studies, it appears that many researchers have identified a link between separation anxiety and parenting styles; however, the extent to which this correlation is significant remains open to debate. Regarding the parenting style parents use to raise their child, countless studies have been conducted. From a cultural perspective, most research has been based on European-American samples (Oyserman, Bybee, Mowbray, & McFarlane, 2002). Diana Baumrind identified four parenting styles through studies on European-American participants, and most instruments used to measure parenting styles were likewise developed for these populations (Brody, 1998), making it difficult to determine whether a specific culture tends to prefer a particular parenting style.
Over time, the degree of parental involvement in a child’s upbringing has been highlighted. Fagan (2000) reports numerous studies on the differences in parental involvement in a child’s life, revealing that mothers and fathers use the same parenting style approximately 65% of the time spent with the child (Hart, Dewolf, Woznyac, and Butts, 1992). Yet it remains crucial to determine each parent’s style. Dishion (1990) asserts that mothers and fathers contribute individually to a child’s development. Fathers have largely been underrepresented in studies exploring their effects on child development (Dishion, Duncan, Eddy, Fagit, & Fathrow, 1994; Pettit, Clowson, Dodge, & Bates, 1996). Current research (Bornstein, 2002; Parke, 2002) supports the notion that mothers typically spend more time with children than fathers do. These studies also show that mother–son interactions produce a stronger bond than mother–daughter interactions (Bornstein, 2002; Collins, Madsen, Susman-Stilman, 2002), and that affection from a same-sex parent leads to positive influences on a child’s development (Bornstein, 2002). Osborn and Finchman (1996) note that most researchers collecting data on both parents’ chosen parenting style do so in the form of a standardized parent–child interaction, assuming a similar contribution from both parents, yet this is often not the case. Fathers are commonly labeled more assertive in parent-child interactions, placing them in the authoritarian category, but they are still considered as competent as mothers (Collins & Russel, 1991). Over time, the structure of families has changed significantly, moving beyond the traditional arrangement where the mother stayed at home to care for the children while the father worked. Gerson (2002) showed that fathers and mothers increasingly share similar attitudes regarding child-rearing.
Regarding separation anxiety studies, a number of ideas have also emerged suggesting that gender differences are key in the onset of this disorder. Earlier we noted that girls may be more susceptible to separation anxiety than boys (Silberg, Rutter, & Eaves, 2001). Yet more recent studies challenge this finding, suggesting that gender distribution in the population is relatively balanced. Compton et al. (2000) even found the reverse pattern, with males more prevalent in a clinical sample. Discussions center on the notion that parents might be more likely to seek help and support if their sons exhibit separation anxiety than if their daughters do, because socially it is considered more “acceptable” for girls to experience such anxiety.
Drawing upon these studies of parenting styles, separation anxiety, and the factors influencing both, this paper will begin with the idea that most previous research focuses primarily on the mother’s role in the emergence of children’s separation anxiety. Even though it has been shown that fathers spend less time with children than mothers do, the parenting style adopted by fathers still plays a highly significant role in children’s behavioral development and manifestations.
Bibliography
• Allen, J. L., Lavallee, K.L., Herren, C., Ruhe, K., Schenider, S. (2010). DSM-IV criteria for childhood separation anxiety disorder: informant, age, and sex differences. Journal of anxiety disorders, 24, 946-952.
• Barrett, P.M. (2000). Treatment of childhood anxiety: developmental aspects ,USA: Clinical Psychology Review, 4: 479-497.
• Barrett, P.M., Duffy, A.L., Dadds, M.R., Rapee, R.M. (2001). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of anxietz disorders in children: Long term (6 year) follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69: 135-141.
• Bogels, S.M., Brechman-Toussaint, M.L. (2006). Family issues in child anxiety : attachment, family functioning, parental rearing and beliefs. Clinical Psychology Review, 26: 834-856.
• Darling, N., Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as a context: An Integrative Model. Psychological Bulletin, 3: 487-496.
• Dolean, I., Dolean, D. D. (2001). Meseria de părinte. Cluj Napoca: Editura MOTIV, 17-21.
• Eisen, A.R., Schaefer, C.E. (2005). Separation anxiety in children and adolescents: An individualized approach to assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford Publications, 1-14.
• Eisen, A.R. (2008). Treating childhood behavioural and emotional problems New York:The Guilford Press, 264-308.
• Frances, A., Pincus, H.A., Michael, B., Widiger, T.A. (2000). DSM-IV-TR , Washington DC: American Psychiatry Association, 121-124.
• McLeod, B.D., Wood, J.J., Weisz, J.R., (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis, Clinical Psychology Review, 27: 155-172.
• Mofrad, S., Abdullah, R., Samah, B.A. (2009). Perceived Parental Overprotection and separation anxiety: Does specific parental rearing serve as specific factor, Asian Social Science, 5, 109-112.
• Mofrad, S., Abdullah, R., Samah, B.A., Mansor, M.B., Baba M.B. (2009). Maternal Psychological Distress and Separation Anxiety Disorder on Children, European Journal of Social Science, 8: 386-393.
• Muris, P., Meesters, C., Merckelbach, H., Hulsenback, P. (2000). Worry in children is related to perceived parental rearing and attachment. Behavioural Research and Therapy, 38: 487-497.
• Nuţ, S. (1989). Anxietate şi performanţă la tineri (abordare psihoindividuală, experimentală şi educaţională). Timişoara: Editura EUROSTAMPA, 196-202.
• Pantley, E. (2001). The no-cry separation anxiety solution-Gentle ways to make goodbye easy from six months to six years – Mc. Graw Hill, 1-21.
• Rockhill, C., Kodish, I., DiBatisto, C., Macias, M., Varley, C.,Ryan, S. (2010). Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Seattle: Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care, 40: 66-99.
• Sims, A., Snaith, P. (1988). Anxiety in clinical practice, John Wiley and Sons,17-58.
• Starrels, M.J. (1994). Gender diferences in parent-child relations, Journal of familiy issues, 15: 148-165.
• Stone, L.J., Church, J., Church, A. (1984). Chidhood and adolescence, A Psychology of the Growng Person, Random House, 5, New York, 430-434.
• Vincent, R. (1972). Cunoaşterea copilului. Bucureşti: Editura didactică şi pedagogică, 45-47.â
• Winsler, A., Madigan, A.L., Aquilino, S.A. (2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20: 1-12.
• Wolman, B.B., Stricker, G. (1994). Anxiety and related disorders- A Handbook, John Wiley and Sons, INC, 195-210.
• Wood, J.J., McLeod, B.D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W.C., Chu, B.C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: theory, empirical findings, and future directions, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 44: 134-151.
• Zigler, E.F., Stevenson, M.F. (1993). Children development and social issues, D.C. and Company, 278-291, 429-431.