Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Child Abuse Negl. 2022 Mar 8;127:105587. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105587

Parenting Style History in Predicting Harsh Parenting and Child Abuse Risk Across the Transition to Parenthood: Role of Gender

Casie H Morgan 1, Doris F Pu 1, Christina M Rodriguez 1
PMCID: PMC8993540  NIHMSID: NIHMS1787448  PMID: 35276532

Abstract

Background:

Intergenerational transmission of abuse processes imply that individuals abused as children are more likely to abuse their own children when they become parents, with similar intergenerational patterns observed for parenting styles.

Objective:

The present study addresses an important gap in the literature regarding the intergenerational cycle, investigating how perceived parenting style history predicts mothers’ and fathers’ child abuse risk across the transition to parenthood, with particular attention to the role of gender by comparing cross-gender and same-gender grandparent-parent dyads.

Participants and Methods:

The sample is drawn from a four-wave longitudinal study that enrolled 203 families beginning the final trimester of mothers’ pregnancy until children were four years old. Parents responded to measures on parenting style history received from both their mothers and fathers as well as measures of their child abuse risk, parent-child aggression, and personal parenting style.

Results:

Mothers demonstrated more same-gender effects, whereas fathers demonstrated more cross-gender effects–both patterns supportive of a tendency to follow maternal influences when considering child abuse risk. With regards to behavior, both mothers’ and fathers’ reports of parent-children aggression were most influenced by perceived harsh parenting received from their fathers.

Conclusions:

Future development of parenting interventions could be more individualized to the participating parent’s reported personal history of parenting style and gender.

Keywords: parenting, child abuse risk, gender, intergenerational transmission, cycle of violence

Child abuse is a major public health crisis in the United States, with over three million reports of suspected maltreatment annually (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2020). Physical abuse—physical harm or threat of harm—and psychological abuse— acts of aggression or omissions that affect cognitive and emotional functioning—are two common forms of abuse experienced by children (DHHS, 2020). Although data collected by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services depict high rates of child abuse (DHHS, 2020), official reports to protective services are often underestimates (Meinck et al., 2016). Given this reporting limitation, an accurate prevalence of child abuse is difficult to capture; thus, child abuse risk and harsh parenting typically serve as proxies for predicting actual child abuse (Chaffin & Valle, 2003; Milner, 1994). In the United States, greater child abuse risk is evident when parents engage in more parent-child aggression (PCA)—namely, severe physical discipline and psychological aggression (Afifi et al., 2017; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010; Zolotor et al., 2008). Thus, parental child abuse risk can be estimated by evaluating parent reports of harsh, aggressive parenting behaviors exhibited during parent-child conflict (Chan, 2012; Straus et al., 1998; van der Put, 2016).

More physically punitive discipline is evident in parenting styles that are viewed as harsh, particularly an authoritarian parenting style (Rodriguez, 2010; Smetana, 2017). Considered the harshest style, authoritarian parenting involves parental intrusiveness, strict rules without negotiation, and limited warmth (Smetana, 2017). In contrast, the optimal parenting style for fostering positive child outcomes is authoritative parenting, in which parents are responsive and warm but set reasonable limits (Robinson et al., 1995; Smetana, 2017; Yaffe, 2020). The current study focuses on authoritarian and authoritative parenting as proxies for harsh, negative parenting and positive parenting, respectively (cf. Slagt et al., 2016).

Parents’ child abuse risk may reflect the extent to which they adopt an authoritarian versus authoritative parenting style. Higher levels of harsh and authoritarian parenting is associated with greater physical or psychological child abuse risk (Lo et al., 2019; Rodriguez & Richardson, 2007; Rodriguez et al., 2016, 2019). In contrast, lower levels of authoritative parenting relate to higher risk of both physical and psychological abuse risk (Lo et al., 2019; Nicholson et al., 2008). However, research linking parenting style and child abuse risk has largely emphasized authoritarian parenting whereas less work has considered whether authoritative parenting is inversely related to child abuse risk, particularly using longitudinal designs.

Intergenerational Effects in Child Abuse Risk

Intergenerational processes have been identified as one potential contributor to parents’ child abuse risk (Greene et al., 2020; Buisman et al., 2020). Consistent with social learning theory through modeling of parent behavior (Khan et al., 2017), particularly aggressive behavior (Huesmann, 2018), a robust literature supports a traditional intergenerational transmission of abuse theory suggesting that individuals abused as children are more likely to abuse their own children when they become parents (Bartlett et al., 2017; Buisman et al., 2020; Greene et al., 2020; van IJzendoorn et al., 2019).

Although a personal history of child abuse is associated with a parent’s higher abuse risk, other intergenerational processes may contribute to abuse risk. Parenting styles also follow intergenerational patterns, considering parents often support and adopt the parenting styles they experienced in childhood (Dixon et al., 2009; Lomanowska et al., 2017; Murray & Mulvaney, 2012). Child abuse risk and harsh discipline are informed by one’s parenting style history—the parenting style received during childhood (Boppana & Rodriguez, 2017; Neppl et al., 2020). For example, adults who experienced harsh, authoritarian discipline as children often engage in harsh discipline as parents, which increases their child abuse risk (Conger et al., 2012, 2013). Alternatively, a history of positive parenting can promote an intergenerational adoption of positive, authoritative parenting (Schofield et al., 2014), potentially decreasing child abuse risk. One longitudinal study found that those who experienced an authoritative parenting style during adolescence implemented the same style in their thirties (Chen & Kaplan, 2001). Less research, however, has evaluated the intergenerational patterns of adopting authoritative parenting styles early in parenting; therefore, the present study will address this gap.

Parenting Differences across Gender

The present study also aims to add to this intergenerational literature by differentiating parenting style history in the intergenerational process with particular focus on the role of gender. Parenting identity involves individuals’ commitment toward parenting and their development of beliefs and attitudes about how to parent and care for their children (Fadjukoff et al., 2016; Katz-Wise et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010). Notably, parenting identity may differ by parent gender because of differing gendered expectations for parenting. Motherhood is traditionally viewed as central to a woman’s identity whereas fatherhood is seldom perceived as central to a man’s identity (Katz-Wise et al., 2010). Across the transition to parenthood, traditional gender-role beliefs may influence new parents’ parenting behaviors (Katz-Wise et al., 2010; Laney et al., 2015), as well as their increased risk for PCA (Gowda & Rodriguez, 2019). Such gender role beliefs may prompt parents to develop parenting identities modeled after their same-gender parent, magnifying intergenerational effects of parenting style by gender.

For example, significant same-gender, rather than cross-gender, continuity in parenting across generations was observed from grandparents’ parenting style to their children’s style as parents (Campbell & Gilmore, 2007). This pattern was also noted for harsh discipline tendencies, with same-gender continuity in harsh discipline more common than cross-gender continuity (Helwig et al., 2014). In contrast, other research finds stronger continuity in intergenerational parenting behaviors and attitudes for mother-child dyads compared to father-child dyads (Erzinger & Steiger, 2014), suggesting cross-gender effects specifically for sons. Recent work has implicated cross-gender effects in parenting styles in relation to pre-parent samples’ emerging child abuse risk (Gonzalez et al., 2022). Related to the traditional greater parenting load on mothers compared to fathers, another study demonstrated that parenting stress strengthened intergenerational effects of harsh physical and psychological aggression by mothers more than fathers (Niu et al., 2018), implying more grandmother-parent dyad continuity relative to grandfather-parent continuity. The disparate findings noted in the literature demonstrate a need for further inquiry into the differential impact of grandparent and parent gender on the intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting and abuse risk.

Current Study

Prior research has demonstrated that a negative parenting style, and potentially positive parenting style, is intergenerational and influential in child abuse risk, although whether and how such intergenerational processes differ by gender remains unclear. Given the comparatively limited research examining the inverse relationship between authoritative parenting style history and later child abuse risk, both authoritative and authoritarian parenting style history were investigated. The current study examined whether mothers’ and fathers’ parenting style history predicted their own child abuse risk and parenting style across the transition to parenthood using a prospective, longitudinal study. (H1) History of more authoritarian parenting was hypothesized to predict higher levels of parents’ physical and psychological PCA, child abuse risk, and authoritarian parenting, as well as lower levels of authoritative parenting; further, a history of less authoritative parenting was hypothesized to predict the same outcomes. (H2) Mixed findings on the effects of gender in the intergenerational persistence of parenting styles and abuse risk call for a closer examination of these relations, particularly across the transition to parenthood when gender role differences may be more pronounced (Katz-Wise et al., 2010). Intergenerational effects of parenting style history on parents’ own child abuse risk, PCA use, and parenting style were hypothesized to differ by grandparent and parent gender. Specifically, intergenerational effects were expected for same-gender dyads (i.e., grandmother-mother, grandfather-father), whereas weaker intergenerational effects were expected for cross-gender dyads (i.e., grandmother-father, grandfather-mother).

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The sample was comprised of parents engaged in a prospective longitudinal study monitoring abuse risk, with over half involving families with one or more sociodemographic risks (i.e., ≤150% of the federal poverty line, receipt of federal assistance, ≤ high school education, single parenthood, ≤ age 18). Conducted in a large Southeastern city, the “Following First Families” (Triple-F) study recruited 203 first-time mothers and 151 of their partners during the last trimester of mothers’ pregnancies (Time 1; T1) for a three-wave study. Participants were recruited using flyers distributed at local hospital obstetric/gynecological clinics and childbirth classes. Mothers interested in joining the study contacted the lab to schedule a 2–2 ½ hour session for themselves and their partner if they were in a relationship with the child’s father. Families were reassessed at Time 2 (T2) when their infant was 6 months (± 2 weeks) and again when their toddler was 18 months (± 3 weeks; Time 3, T3). The Triple-F study was later extended, locating families for a fourth wave by phone or email (Time 4; T4) when their children turned four (between 4 – 4 ½ years). Two infants had died by Time 2 so those families were no longer eligible to continue in the study; by Time 3, one family had lost custody of their child, and by Time 4, another family had lost custody. At Time 2, 186 mothers and 146 fathers participated; by Time 3, 180 mothers and 144 fathers participated; by Time 4, 119 mothers and 93 fathers participated in the extension.

At Time 1, mothers’ average age was 26.04 years old (SD = 5.87). With regard to race/ethnicity, mothers identified as: 50.7% White, 46.8% African-American, 1.5% Native American, and 1% Asian; of these participants, 3% also identified as Hispanic/Latina and 5.5% identified as biracial. Regarding educational attainment, mothers reported: 30.3% high school or less; 20.9% some college or vocational training; 21.4% college degree; and 27.4% beyond college degree. More than half of mothers reported a combined annual household income under $40,000, with 49.3% reporting a household income within 150% of the federal poverty line and more than 42% reporting receipt of public assistance. At Time 1, 87% of mothers were in a relationship with the partner, with 74% living together. At Time 1, fathers’ mean age was 28.87 years old (SD = 6.10). For race/ethnicity, fathers identified as: 54% White, 45.3% African-American, and 0.7% Asian; additionally, of these, 4% also identified as Hispanic/Latino and 4.7% identified as biracial. For fathers’ educational attainment: 25.3% high school or less; 24.7% some college or vocational training; 27.3% college degree; 22.7% beyond college degree.

At each time point, mothers and fathers provided consent independently and completed the study in separate areas. All measures were delivered electronically on laptop computers with headphones. All study procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

A set of Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) measures were used in this study. At Time 1, the PAQ version that assesses the parenting style respondents received in childhood (Buri, 1991) was administered, consisting of 30 items assessing history of an authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting style (10 items per style). For this study, authoritarian and authoritative style scores were extracted. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). At T1, prospective mothers and fathers reported on the parenting style they received from their mothers (prospective grandmothers) and from their fathers (prospective grandfathers) separately. Four total scores (grandmother authoritative and authoritarian and grandfather authoritative and authoritarian) were generated by reversing and summing across items per scale such that higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of that parenting style. Reliability was acceptable in this study for all parenting style history scores: mothers’ report of grandmothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting, α = .86 and .76, respectively; mothers’ report of grandfathers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style, α = .90 and .79; fathers’ report of grandmothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style, α = .85 and .75; and fathers’ report of grandfathers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style, α = .87 and .83.

In addition, a separate PAQ (Expected PAQ; Boppana & Rodriguez, 2017) was administered from Time 1 to Time 3, when participants were either expectant parents (T1) or parents of very young children (T2 and T3). The Expected PAQ was rephrased in future tense but consistent with the Revised PAQ (PAQ-R; Reitman et al., 2002), which assesses parents’ self-report of their own parenting style using the same 30 items of the original PAQ. For mothers and fathers’ Expected PAQ scores regarding their own parenting style, acceptable reliability was observed across T1-T3 for Authoritative (α = .74 to .90) and Authoritarian (α = .80 to .86) parenting style scores. By Time 4, when their children were in preschool, participants completed the PAQ-R for their current parenting style. In the current study, mothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style scores demonstrated good reliability, α = .81 and .80, respectively, as did fathers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style scores, α = .88 and .76.

Administered at all four time points, the Response Analog to Child Compliance Task (ReACCT; Rodriguez, 2016) is a computerized analog task that simulates a realistic parent-child interaction, designed to measure child abuse risk. A parent is described as running late and needing to get their child to preschool. Using 12 successive scenes, the parent directs their child to engage in a behavior to progress toward leaving home, and the child is reportedly compliant or noncompliant. Twenty steps are scored across these scenes given a parent can remain stuck in a scene if the child is noncompliant. For each step, the parent selects from 16 options to respond to the child’s behavior—some adaptive (receiving positive weights), others maladaptive like physical or psychological PCA (receiving negative weights). The participant hears and sees a ticking clock during this task to elicit time urgency. Each time the parent appears to secure quick compliance, they receive a game bonus of 50 cents. For this study, the ReACCT scores selected were the 12 responses to child noncompliance, with higher scores indicating harsher responses. Multiple samples demonstrate validity for the ReACCT Noncompliance scores, significantly relating to other measures of child abuse risk and abusive PCA (Rodriguez, 2016). Acceptable internal consistency was observed in the current study across time for both mothers (.81 to .83) and fathers (.78 to .79).

The Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) was administered at T3 and T4 given this measure is suitable for parents of children age 1 and older. The CTSPC is one of the most frequently used measures to assess parents’ child maltreatment and use of physical or psychological PCA. Parents estimate the frequency with which they have used 22 discipline tactics in the past year, from nonviolent to aggressive responses. The CTSPC items are scored as follows: responses of 0, 1, or 2 times receive that corresponding score; 3–5 times receive a score of 4; 6–10 times is scored an 8; 11–20 times is scored as 15; more than 20 times is scored as 25. The current study utilized parents’ reports on the 13 items of the Physical Assault subscale combined with the 5 items of the Psychological Aggression subscale, for a weighted total score labeled CTSPC Combined Assault to assess PCA use. The widely used CTSPC has been administered internationally (e.g., Beatriz & Salhi, 2019) and Straus and colleagues (1998) indicate support for both construct and discriminant validity.

Analytic Plan

Missing Data.

Because of participant loss to follow-up by Time 4, differential attrition analyses were first performed to evaluate whether T1, T2, or T3 participants who did not return for T4 differed from those retained. Independent samples t-tests were performed for mothers and fathers separately. Analyses indicated that those not retained by T4 did not differ significantly on any of the outcome variables of interest (e.g., Expected PAQ Authoritative and Authoritarian, and ReACCT Noncompliance, CTSPC Combined Assault) at Times 1, 2, or 3.

Analyses.

Descriptive statistics and correlations were performed in SPSS 24. Primary analyses were conducted in Mplus 8.1, with missing data accommodated with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation. Path models were estimated for mothers and fathers separately for each of the three outcome measures: PAQ, ReACCT, and CTSPC Combined Assault, for a total of six path models; these highly controlled models thus account for stability across time in the outcome measures. Model fit was evaluated using root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI). For RMSEA and SRMR, values < .08 are ideal; CFI values > .95 also denote adequate model fit (Kline, 2011). All reported path coefficients are standardized.

Results

Sample means, standard deviations, and all correlations appear in Table 1 by parent gender and by time point. Regarding H1, as seen in Table 1 (first block of columns for mothers and top quadrant for fathers), a history of grandparent authoritarian parenting was significantly positively related to both mothers and fathers’ own authoritarian parenting style scores (but not their lower authoritative parenting) consistently across time; a history of less grandparent authoritative parenting was not significantly related to either mothers’ or fathers’ authoritarian parenting at any time point. For fathers, a history of more grandmother and grandfather authoritarian parenting (but not authoritative parenting) was significantly related to abuse risk on the analog measure (ReACCT) prenatally and during infancy; however, no notable effects with ReACCT scores were apparent for mothers. Finally, for both mothers and fathers, more grandfather (but not grandmother) authoritarian parenting history was significantly related to parents’ own PCA use with toddlers (T3) and 4-year-old children (T4); for mothers, less grandmother authoritative parenting was related to their report of using more PCA by the time their children were four.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Measures.

Personal history Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
1. Tl GM ATV −.09 .67*** −.11 .28*** .09 −.09 .06 −.03 −.06 .12 .03 −.11 −.15 .04 −.02 −.01 .01
2. Tl GM AUN −.24*** −.03 .69*** .13 .61*** .29*** −.03 .40*** .26** −.03 .35** .16 .14 .06 .34** −.04 .04
3. Tl GF ATV .51*** −.17* −.08 .20* .04 −.10 .06 −.11 −.05 −.08 −.11 .05 .00 .10 −.12 −.07 −.02
4. Tl GF AUN .02 .56*** −.19* .16 49*** .31*** −.02 .37*** .24* .11 .30** .12 .26** .00 .32* .09 .32*
5. Tl PAQ ATV .13 .05 .10 .03 .03 −.23** .53*** −.13 −.30*** .52*** −.17 −.25** −.06 .35** −.08 −.22 .27*
6. Tl PAQ AUN .09 .56*** .00 .53*** .16* .43*** −.11 .71*** .34*** −.07 .61*** .25** .18* −.12 .58*** .22 .09
7. Tl ReACCT −.09 .16* −.10 .15* −.16* .26*** −.36*** .33*** .58*** −.29** .27** .51*** .37*** −.27* .24* .48*** .01
8. T2 PAQ ATV .01 .01 −.04 .07 .56*** .07 −.21** .22** −.30*** .48*** −.13 −.36*** −.12 .50*** −.13 −.38** .03
9. T2 PAQ AUN −.04 .43*** −.10 .42*** −.02 .68*** .35*** .17* .37*** −.16 .61*** .29** .20* −.06 .60*** .26* .02
10. T2 ReACCT −.01 .12 −.09 .15 −.27*** .27*** .75*** −.20** .39*** −.22 .40*** .65*** .46*** −.22 .38** .57*** .10
11. T3 PAQ ATV .04 .05 −.04 .08 .52*** .15* −.22 .68*** .16* ,26*** .27** −.39*** −.04 .28* −.08 −.24* .27*
12. T3 PAQ AUN −.01 .42*** −.07 .35*** −.03 .63*** .34*** −.01 .70*** .39*** .21** .18* .21* −.09 .58*** .19 .18
13. T3 ReACCT −.07 .09 −.11 .10 −.21** .13 .68*** −.23** .23** .69*** −.32*** .21** .31*** −.20 .27* .56*** .03
14. T3 CTSPC −.05 .10 −.13 .27*** −.09 .11 .32*** .10 .24** 29*** .01 .15 .32*** −.07 .41*** .39*** .57***
15. T4 PAQ ATV .08 .01 .08 .08 .22* .09 −.19* .45*** .19* −.20* .51*** .09 −.20* .15 .00 −.31** .05
16. T4 PAQ AUN −.11 .45*** .08 .41*** −.11 .56*** .30** −.12 .55*** .22* −.03 .63*** .18 .23* .23* .30** .30**
17. T4 ReACCT −.22* .09 −.18 .15 −.07 .18 .61*** −.24** .20* .63*** −.25** .23* .68*** .36*** −.34*** .21* .25*
18. T4 CTSPC −.30** .04 −.17 .28** −.03 .16 .29** .08 .21* .26** .00 .08 .32*** .68*** .11 .22* .42***
Mothers M 34.61 36.46 32.95 36.35 42.62 34.20 0.24 42.01 33.69 0.22 41.87 34.11 −0.01 14.32 42.29 33.30 −4.16 25.52
Mothers SD 8.61 6.91 9.56 7.97 4.88 6.53 12.87 5.92 6.55 14.70 6.06 6.74 13.86 21.82 6.07 7.16 11.96 28.09
Fathers M 34.52 36.18 33.39 36.42 41.51 34.18 −0.13 40.88 33.50 0.30 40.55 32.56 1.18 12.46 40.92 32.18 −5.18 21.11
Fathers SD 8.77 6.84 8.96 8.49 5.80 6.84 12.74 6.28 7.26 13.21 6.90 7.18 13.66 18.09 7.14 6.30 11.25 24.00
Open in a new tab

Note. Mothers’ scores below the diagonal & fathers’ scores above the diagonal across the upper panels. GM = prospective grandmother, GF=prospective grandfather. History: 1 = T1 Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) History GM Authoritative, 2 = Tl PAQ History GM Authoritarian, 3 = T1 PAQ History GFAuthoritative; 4 = T1 PAQ History GF Authoritarian. Time 1 (Tl): 5 = T1 Expected PAQ Authoritative, 6 = Tl Expected PAQ Authoritarian, 7 = Tl Response Analog to Child Compliance Task (ReACCT) Noncompliance. Time 2 (T2): 8 = T2 Expected PAQ Authoritative, 9 = T2 Expected PAQ Authoritarian, 10 = T2 ReACCT Noncompliance. Time 3 (T3): 11 = T3 Expected PAQ Authoritative, 12 = T3 Expected PAQ Authoritarian, 13 = T3 ReACCT Noncompliance, 14 = T3 Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC) Combined Assault. Time 4 (T4): 15 = T4 Expected PAQ Authoritative, 16 = T4 Expected PAQ Authoritarian, 17 = T4 ReACCT Noncompliance, 18 = T4 CTSPC Combined Assault.

*

p ≤ .05.

**

p ≤ .01.

***

p ≤ .001.

PAQ Parenting Style Path Analyses

Findings from all path analyses for H2 appear in Table 2.

Table 2.

Standardized Coefficients for Path Models

Mothers Fathers
Parameter Estimate β p β p
PAQ Models
History of Grandmother Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GM ATV → T1 Expected PAQ ATV .15 .101 .27 .009
 T1 GM ATV → T2 Expected PAQ ATV −.01 .915 −.12 .269
 T1 GM ATV → T3 Expected PAQ ATV .05 467 .20 .032
 T1 GM ATV → T4 PAQ ATV .02 871 −.14 .265
 T1 GM ATV → T1 Expected PAQ AUN .13 .014 .17 .058
 T1 GM ATV → T2 Expected PAQ AUN −.04 .454 .03 .745
 T1 GM ATV → T3 Expected PAQ AUN .01 .819 .12 .219
 T1 GM ATV → T4 PAQ AUN −.20 .006 −.14 .262
History of Grandmother Authoritarian Parenting
 T1 GM AUN → T1 Expected PAQ ATV .10 .303 .01 .921
 T1 GM AUN → T2 Expected PAQ ATV −.06 .473 .01 .912
 T1 GM AUN → T3 Expected PAQ ATV .08 .245 −.21 .030
 T1 GM AUN → T4 PAQ ATV −.05 .637 .02 .890
 T1 GM AUN → T1 Expected PAQ AUN .42 .000 .52 .000
 T1 GM AUN → T2 Expected PAQ AUN .02 .799 .01 .899
 T1 GM AUN → T3 Expected PAQ AUN .06 .437 .00 .968
 T1 GM AUN → T4 PAQ AUN −.06 .605 −.03 .868
History of Grandfather Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GF ATV → T1 Expected PAQ ATV .04 .706 .03 .785
 T1 GF ATV → T2 Expected PAQ ATV −.10 .187 .02 .837
 T1 GF ATV → T3 Expected PAQ ATV −.04 .504 −.26 .005
 T1 GF ATV → T4 PAQ ATV .06 .585 .22 .123
 T1 GF ATV → T1 Expected PAQ AUN .02 .634 −.02 .796
 T1 GF ATV → T2 Exp. cteo PAQ AUN −.04 .419 −.16 .085
 T1 GF ATV → T3 Exacted PAQ AUN .00 .925 −.18 .075
 T1 GF ATV → T4 PAQ AUN .15 .029 .03 .831
History of Grandfather Authoritarian Parenting
 T1 GF AUN → T1 Expected PAQ ATV .00 .976 .22 .048
 T1 GF AUN → T2 Expected PAQ ATV .06 .469 −.10 .431
 T1 GF AUN → T3 Expected PAQ ATV −.03 .659 .18 .062
 T1 GF AUN → T4 PAQ ATV .10 .417 .08 .641
 T1 GF AUN → T1 Expected PAQ AUN .23 .000 .15 .104
 T1 GF AUN → T2 Expected PAQ AUN .03 .573 −.03 .777
 T1 GF AUN → T3 Expected PAQ AUN −.05 .407 .03 .757
 T1 GF AUN → T4 PAQ AUN .10 .281 .05 .798
ReACCT Noncompliance Scale Models
History of Grandmother Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GM ATV → T1 ReACCT −.05 .538 .05 .628
 T1 GM ATV → T2 ReACCT .06 .333 .05 .626
 T1 GM ATV → T3 ReACCT −.03 .645 −.21 .019
 T1 GM ATV → T4 ReACCT −.17 .049 .14 .188
History of Grandmother Authoritarian Parenting
 T1 GM AUN → T1 ReACCT .10 .272 .19 .100
 T1 GM AUN → T2 ReACCT −.04 .605 .08 .455
 T1 GM AUN → T3 ReACCT −.05 .451 .05 .579
 T1 GM AUN → T4 ReACCT −.08 .401 −.23 .064
History of Grandfather Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GF ATV → T1 ReACCT −.03 .721 −.16 .160
 T1 GF ATV → T2 ReACCT −.07 .283 .00 .991
 T1 GF ATV → T3 ReACCT −02 .784 .23 .011
 T1 GF ATV → T4 ReACCT .02 .821 −.13 .248
History of Grandfather Authoritarian Parenting
 T1 GF AUN → T1 ReACCT .07 .443 .17 .168
 T1 GF AUN → T2 ReACCT * .03 .705 .04 .682
 T1 GF AUN → T3 ReACCT .01 .895 −.08 .411
 T1 GF AUN → T4 ReACCT .11 .270 .11 .371
CTSPC Combined Assault Models
History of Grandmother Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GM ATV → T3 CTSPC −.03 .785 −.17 .195
 T1 GM ATV → T4 CTSPC −.35 .000 .16 .172
History of Grandmother Authoritarian Parenting
 T1 GM AUN → T3 CTSPC −.08 .400 −.10 .446
 T1 GM AUN → T4 CTSPC −.22 .014 −.23 .083
History of Grandfather Authoritative Parenting
 T1 GF ATV → T3 CTSPC −.08 .392 .09 .491
 T1 GF ATV → T4 CTSPC .09 .315 −.07 .541
History of Grandfather Authoi/arii u Parenting
 T1 GF AUN → T3 CTSPC .26 .010 .37 .004
 T1 GF AUN → T4 CTSPC .25 .009 .34 .014
Open in a new tab

Note. T1: Time 1 (prenatal); T2: Time 2 (6 months); T3: Time 3 (18 months); T4: Time 4 (4 years). GM=Prospective Grandmother; GF=Prospective Grandfather. ATV=Authoritative; AUN=Authoritarian. PAQ=Parental Authority Questionnaire. ReACCT=Response Analog to Child Compliance Task Noncompliance. CTSPC=Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale Combined Assault. Bolded values indicate statistical significance. Covariances available upon request.

Mothers.

Model fit for mothers was strong: RMSEA = .030; SRMR = .053; CFI = .997. Regarding same-gender effects, whereas history of grandmother authoritative parenting did not significantly predict mothers’ own authoritative parenting across time, more grandmother authoritative parenting predicted expectations of greater authoritarian parenting prenatally (T1) but less authoritarian parenting by the time children were age 4 (T4). History of greater grandmother authoritarian parenting did not significantly predict mothers’ lower authoritative parenting across time but did predict mothers’ prenatal expectations of greater authoritarian parenting (T1). For cross-gender effects, history of grandfathers’ more authoritative parenting did not predict mothers’ own authoritative parenting across time but did weakly predict mothers’ greater authoritarian parenting when children were age 4 (T4). History of grandfather authoritarian parenting did not predict mothers’ authoritative parenting across time but was related to mothers’ prenatal expectations of greater authoritarian parenting (T1).

Fathers.

Model fit for fathers was acceptable: RMSEA = .068; SRMR = .090; CFI = .980. For cross-gender effects, history of more grandmother authoritative parenting predicted fathers’ expectations of greater authoritative parenting prenatally (T1) and when children were 18 months (T3), but did not significantly predict fathers’ authoritarian parenting across time. History of more grandmother authoritarian parenting predicted fathers’ lower authoritative parenting when children were toddlers (T3) as well as fathers’ expectations of greater authoritarian parenting prenatally (T1). Regarding same-gender effects, history of grandfathers’ more authoritative parenting predicted fathers’ expectations of less authoritative parenting when children were 18 months (T3), with no effects observed on fathers’ authoritarian parenting across time. History of grandfathers’ more authoritarian parenting predicted fathers’ expectations of more authoritative parenting prenatally (T1) but grandfather authoritarian did not significantly predict fathers’ authoritarian parenting across time.

ReACCT Noncompliance (Abuse Risk) Path Analyses

Mothers.

Model fit for mothers was acceptable: RMSEA = .088; SRMR = .011; CFI = .996. For same gender-effects, history of more grandmother authoritative parenting predicted lower ReACCT scores at T4, reflecting less harsh responses to child noncompliance when children were age 4. No significant effects were observed for either grandmother authoritarian or either grandfather parenting styles.

Fathers.

Model fit for fathers was strong: RMSEA = .000; SRMR = .009; CFI = 1.000. In terms of cross-gender effects, history of more grandmother authoritative parenting significantly predicted lower ReACCT scores at T3, indicating less harsh responses to child noncompliance when children were 18 months old. In contrast, for same-gender effects, history of more grandfather authoritative parenting significantly predicted higher ReACCT scores at T3, indicating harsher responses to child noncompliance at 18 months. No paths pertaining to either grandparent authoritarian parenting style were significant.

CTSPC Combined Assault (Parent-Child Aggression) Path Analyses

Mothers.

Model fit for mothers was just identified: RMSEA = .000; SRMR = .000; CFI = 1.000. For same-gender effects, history of more grandmother authoritative and authoritarian parenting each predicted lower CTSPC Combined Assault scores at T4, indicating less PCA use towards their 4-year-old child. In contrast, in terms of cross-gender effects, history of more grandfather authoritarian parenting predicted higher CTSPC Combined Assault scores at both T3 and T4, indicating greater PCA use toward their child at 18 months and 4 years of age.

Fathers.

Model fit for fathers was also just identified: RMSEA = .000; SRMR = .000; CFI = 1.000. Regarding same-gender effects, history of more grandfather authoritarian parenting significantly predicted higher CTSPC Combined Assault scores at both T3 and T4, reflective of greater use of physical and verbal aggression towards their child at 18 months and 4 years of age. More authoritative parenting by grandfathers did not predict fathers’ own PCA use. No cross-gender effects for the CTSPC were observed.

Discussion

The current study investigated the significance of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting style history on their own child abuse risk, physical and psychological PCA, and parenting style across the transition to parenthood. As demonstrated in the correlational results, across time, authoritarian parenting style was more salient intergenerationally compared to an authoritative parenting style. Mothers and fathers raised by authoritarian parents were more likely to endorse higher levels of authoritarian parenting, and in some instances, child abuse risk and physical and psychological aggression. These findings support previous research (Conger et al., 2012, 2013) aligned with our initial hypothesis, which emphasized the transmissibility of high levels of authoritarian parenting history on negative parenting but did not provide similar support for low levels of authoritative parenting history relating to similar negative parenting. Contrary to the prior limited work (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Schofield et al., 2014), mothers and fathers raised by authoritative parents were not more likely to adopt an authoritative parenting style, nor did authoritative parenting history generally relate to lower levels of harsh parenting or abuse risk. Examination of the well-controlled path models in regard to gender provide additional clarity to the relationships between parenting style history and parents’ later parenting style and abuse risk.

Grandmother-Mother Dyads

Beginning with mothers, the findings from the present study provide some support for previous research on the same-gender effects in intergenerational parenting style (Campbell & Gilmore, 2007) and harsh discipline tendencies (Helwig et al., 2014). The current study extends this literature by examining same-gender patterns for abuse risk and PCA use as well. With regard to parenting style, mothers were more likely to be authoritarian if grandmothers were perceived as authoritarian and less likely to be authoritarian if grandmothers were perceived as authoritative, suggesting a potential protective factor from receiving an authoritative parenting style. This protective effect is further illustrated by the relation between mothers’ lower child abuse risk and lower parent-child aggression scores with their perception that grandmothers were more authoritative. Unexpectedly, grandmothers who were perceived as authoritarian predicted lower maternal parent-child aggression. However, the relation between perceived authoritarianism in grandmothers and lower maternal PCA was weaker in the strongly-controlled path model compared to grandmothers’ authoritativeness and more likely reflects shared variance between mothers’ reporting of grandmothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting. The overall pattern supports authoritativeness as a stronger protective factor to reduce mothers’ abuse risk and PCA use rather than a desire to break the intergenerational cycle of grandmothers’ authoritarian parenting given the continuity observed for authoritarian parenting style. Lastly, of additional importance is a pattern of mothers modeling their mothers: whereas limited evidence emerged for intergenerational continuity of perceived authoritative parenting from grandmothers (authoritative mothers aligning with authoritative grandmothers), there was strong evidence for mothers demonstrating the intergenerational effects from perceived authoritarian parenting from grandmothers.

Grandfather-Mother Dyads

Observed cross-gender effects in grandfather-mother dyads were less common and often less powerful when compared to grandmother-mother dyad effects for the same outcomes. Perceived grandfather authoritarian parenting was related to mothers’ expected authoritarian parenting (β = .23) but not as strongly as perceived grandmother authoritarian parenting (β = .42). Hence, grandmothers’ authoritarianism appears more influential in the intergenerational process for mothers compared to grandfathers’ authoritarianism. Although grandfather authoritative parenting predicted higher levels of authoritarianism in mothers (an unexpected reverse direction than observed in grandmother-mother dyads), grandmother authoritativeness remained the stronger effect on mother’s authoritarian parenting. This pattern of stronger grandmother influence on mothers shifts, however, when examining parent-child aggression use, wherein perceived grandfather authoritarian parenting predicted mothers’ greater actual physical and psychological PCA—the first notable outcome where mothers align with their own fathers more clearly than their mothers. This shift may reflect an important distinction when assessing parents’ actual behavioral outcomes relative to perceived parenting style or abuse risk.

Grandfather-Father Dyads

Same-gender effects for fathers differed from same-gender effects observed for mothers such that fathers appeared to demonstrate a desire to not be like their own fathers and break the intergenerational cycle of parenting style specifically, even if their parenting history was positive. For example, paternal perceptions that grandfathers were more authoritative predicted lower levels of expected authoritative parenting and higher levels of abuse risk for fathers—an opposite direction than expected. Further, grandfathers perceived as more authoritarian predicted both higher levels of fathers’ authoritarian parenting (evidence of same-gender continuity) but also higher levels of authoritative parenting. Although these patterns may be partly explained by shared variance between parenting styles, the “father wound”—an internalized, unresolved conflict between father and son regarding the development of male identity—may be an alternative explanation for this observed rejection within the grandfather-father dyad (Diamond, 2007; Miller, 2013). Research has shown men report that the father wound is especially heightened during pivotal life experiences (e.g., marriage and fatherhood; Balcom, 2002). The father wound may be one explanation, therefore, for fathers’ internal drive to differ from their father when parenting. However, in contrast to the patterns demonstrated for parenting style and abuse risk, fathers’ nonetheless shifted to behave more like their fathers when reporting actual parent-child aggression. Fathers appeared to wish to differ from their own fathers when reporting their attitudes toward parenting style and child abuse risk, yet, when reported behaviorally, aligned more closely with their fathers than they may have expected. The difference observed between attitudes and actual behavior may reflect how powerful the intergenerational process is and how challenging it is to “break” the cycle.

Grandmother-Father Dyads

Cross-gender effects in grandmother-father dyads reflected an important influence mothers may have on their sons, comparable to other observed potential cross-gender effects (Erzinger & Steiger, 2014). The grandmother-father effects appeared stronger than the grandfather-mother effects. For example, perceived grandmother authoritative parenting predicted more authoritative parenting and lower abuse risk scores for fathers, whereas perceived grandmother authoritarian parenting predicted lower levels of authoritative parenting and higher levels of authoritarian parenting for fathers. Unlike the grandfather-father dyad, fathers appeared to be more influenced by their mothers. When examining previous literature on mother-son relationships, a pattern emerges demonstrating a unique influence mothers have on their sons when it comes to men adopting certain characteristics and maturing into particular roles (e.g., as fathers, husbands; Gurian, 2006). Recent literature is limited in studying mother-son dyads and exploring why effects may differ from those observed for father-son dyads—an important area for continued research. However, interestingly, no cross gender effects were noted for fathers’ actual parent-child aggression, supporting a same-gender shift when considering the behavioral reports for parent-child aggression.

Grandfathers as Primary Models of Harsh Discipline

Both mothers and fathers evidenced the pattern of grandfathers’ authoritarian parenting style history relating to their later actual PCA use. Such findings with parent-child aggression may relate to different discipline styles typically adopted by mothers and fathers. Mothers tend to use more inductive discipline—an authoritative approach that uses reasoning to explain their actions and disciplinary choices—whereas fathers tend to use more power assertion—an authoritarian approach (McKinney et al., 2018). Given this data, authoritarian grandfathers may be using harsh discipline more frequently than authoritarian grandmothers and thus contribute more strongly to perpetuating the cycle of parent-child aggression as primary models demonstrating the behavior. Whereas discipline strategies and approaches continue to remain uneven between mothers and fathers, recent research identifies mothers as the daily disciplinarians, whereas fathers tend to be more relaxed in their response to daily noncompliance (Hallers-Haalboom et al., 2016), but potentially harsher than mothers when they do engage in discipline (McKinney et al., 2018). This may further emphasize the importance of examining gender role beliefs in future research and highlights the importance of both the father-child dyad in the specific context of parent-child aggression and the wider salience of the mother-child dyad; this pattern could be supported by social learning theory (Huesmann, 2018; Khan et al., 2017), such that grandmothers are the most frequent models for general parenting style and discipline strategies, which may translate into greater impact on those intergenerational processes. Notably, parent reports of grandfathers’ authoritarian parenting may be a reflection of their actual PCA use, which we could not disentangle in the current research design. Therefore, future research should better clarify this distinction to distinguish the effect of grandfathers’ actual parent-child aggression from their parenting style.

Grandmothers as Primary Models of Parenting Style

But previous research has also shown stronger continuity for mother-child dyads compared to father-child dyads (Erzinger & Steiger, 2014). Both mothers and fathers appeared to be influenced in their parenting style and abuse risk in alignment with grandmothers. The evidence noted in the same-gender and cross-gender effects imply that mothers may be more influential than fathers when considering the intergenerational processes for parenting style and abuse risk. The importance of mothers in these intergenerational processes may reflect the unique role mothers play in the family system. The bulk of the family care responsibility often falls to mothers: recent research has shown some shifts in division of labor within households, but emphasizes this division is related to values, resources, and opportunities available to the family (Gordon, 2018). When considering the present sample, over half of the families struggled with one or more sociodemographic risks, ranging from financial difficulties, low education, single parenthood, or young age. Therefore, these participants’ parenting history and current parenting practices may be more reflective of the traditional gender roles of a mother assuming most of the parenting burden (Katz-Wise et al., 2010), with recent evidence linking traditional gender role ideology to higher child abuse risk (Gowda & Rodriguez, 2019). Additionally, the different patterns noted between mothers and fathers may reflect the amount of contact and perceived closeness between each parent-grandparent dyad. Future research may consider measuring perceived relationship quality with grandparents to further clarify whether strength of the parent-grandparent relationship explains some of the heightened effects noted for mothers.

Limitations and Additional Future Directions

Current results should be interpreted in the context of some study limitations. Parenting expectations and parent-child relationships change depending on the child’s developmental stage (e.g., infancy versus preschool versus adolescence). Given that the present study ended when children were age 4 years, future longitudinal research could collect data through school-aged years and adolescence. Relatedly, although families retained until age four did not differ on outcomes from those who did not return, higher retention rates at the last time point could have impacted response patterns. Future research should consider such processes retaining families across a longer period of time using longitudinal studies. Additionally, present findings are based on retrospective reports of the parenting style history parents received and parents’ self-reports of their own parenting style and parent-child aggression rather than independently corroborated reports. Future research should consider confirmed reports of parent-child aggression and abuse or other objective methods to measure parent-child aggression and abuse risk to compare with self-report data to minimize source bias concerns. Furthermore, the present findings may not apply to parents raising children in same-sex households or to families with adopted children. Future research should aim to include and evaluate these effects with diverse family compositions. Indeed, the current findings do not address how changes in family configurations over time affect parenting or parent-child aggression, a variable that future work should consider how to meaningfully assess and evaluate. A final limitation involves the modest sample size of fathers across time. Fathers are historically difficult to study in psychological research, but consistent progress has been made toward involving them in research (Davison et al., 2017). Future research should identify innovative strategies to recruit and retain fathers throughout similar longitudinal studies.

Conclusion

The present study addresses an important gap in the literature regarding the intergenerational cycle of perceived parenting style and child abuse risk, and the role of gender in this process. A few key findings are important to highlight. First, our findings expand our knowledge of intergenerational effects of authoritative parenting styles. Specifically, child abuse prevention programs should both discourage authoritarian parenting and promote authoritative parenting with the expectation that simply teaching authoritative parenting would not be sufficient to potentially alter intergenerational attitudes and behaviors. Second, it may be strategic to prioritize mothers as targets of clinical intervention because they appear to be a critical component in perpetuating or breaking the intergenerational cycle given the salience of the mother-child dyad in the present findings. Further, both same-gender and cross-gender effects are relevant when targeting the mother-child dyad in the intergenerational cycle. Considering grandparents in parenting interventions, or at least incorporating discussion of parenting style history in interventions, may be a useful tool to individually tailor interventions to meet a parent’s particular needs. Relatedly, mothers and fathers in our study may have been raised under more traditional parenting approaches, with the grandmother being more heavily involved and invested in parenting than the grandfathers. Knowledge of their history can inform approaches to the parenting intervention because the values and beliefs generated in a more traditional family may differ from a more egalitarian family. Overall, this study provides support for tailoring parenting interventions based on the gender of the parent involved in the intervention and based on the parent’s reported history and may assist in the development of more individualized future child abuse prevention strategies.

Acknowledgments

We thank our participating families and participating Obstetrics/Gynecology clinics that facilitated recruitment. This research was supported by award number R15HD071431 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the third author, and by award number TL1TR003106 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to the second author. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. In addition, this project was supported by the: Jesse B. Milby Endowed Support Fund; Mamie Phipps Clark Diversity Research Grant, Psi Chi International Honor Society in Psychology; American Psychological Foundation Annette Urso Rickel Foundation Dissertation Award; and American Psychological Association, Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice Section on Child Maltreatment Dissertation Grant Award. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Afifi TO, Ford D, Gershoff ET, Merrick M, Grogan-Kaylor A, Ports KA, … & Bennett RP (2017). Spanking and adult mental health impairment: The case for the designation of spanking as an adverse childhood experience. Child Abuse & Neglect, 71, 24–31. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balcom DA (2002). Absent fathers: Effects on abandoned sons. The Journal of Men’s Studies 6: 283–296. 10.1177/106082659800600302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartlett JD, Kotake C, Fauth R, & Easterbrooks MA (2017). Intergenerational transmission of child abuse and neglect: Do maltreatment type, perpetrator, and substantiation status matter?. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 84–94. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beatriz E, & Salhi C. (2019). Child discipline in low- and middle-income countries: Socioeconomic disparities at the household- and country-level. Child Abuse & Neglect, 94, 104023. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boppana S, & Rodriguez CM (2017). Mediators between parenting history and expected atrisk parenting: Role of conformity, coping, and attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 3237–3245. 10.1007/s10826-017-0812-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buisman RS, Pittner K, Tollenaar MS, Lindenberg J, van den Berg LJ, Compier-de Block LH, … & van IJzendoorn MH (2020). Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment using a multi-informant multi-generation family design. PloS one, 15(3), e0225839. 10.1371/journal.pone.0232792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buri JR (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110–119. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Campbell J, & Gilmore L. (2007). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in parenting styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 140–150. 10.1080/00049530701449471 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaffin M, & Valle L. (2003). Dynamic prediction characteristics of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 463–481. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00036-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan KL (2012). Evaluating the risk of child abuse: the Child Abuse Risk Assessment Scale (CARAS). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 951–973. 10.1177/0886260511423252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen ZY, & Kaplan HB (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 17–31. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00017.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Conger RD, Schofield TJ, & Neppl TK (2012). Intergenerational continuity and discontinuity in harsh parenting. Parenting, 12(2–3), 222–231. 10.1080/15295192.2012.683360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Conger RD, Schofield TJ, Neppl TK, & Merrick MT (2013). Disrupting intergenerational continuity in harsh and abusive parenting: The importance of a nurturing relationship with a romantic partner. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), S11–S17. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davison KK, Charles JN, Khandpur N, & Nelson TJ (2017). Fathers’ perceived reasons for their underrepresentation in child health research and strategies to increase their involvement. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21, 267–274. 10.1007/s10995-016-2157-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Diamond MJ (2007). My father before me: How fathers and sons influence each other throughout their lives. Norton: New York. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dixon L, Browne K, & Hamilton-Giachritsis C. (2009). Patterns of risk and protective factors in the intergenerational cycle of maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 24(2), 111–122. 10.1007/s10896-008-9215-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Erzinger AB, & Steiger AE (2014). Intergenerational transmission of maternal and paternal parenting beliefs: The moderating role of interaction quality. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 177–195. 10.1080/17405629.2013.870070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fadjukoff P, Pulkkinen L, Lyyra AL, & Kokko K. (2016). Parental identity and its relation to parenting and psychological functioning in middle age. Parenting, 16(2), 87–107. 10.1080/15295192.2016.1134989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gershoff ET, & Grogan-Kaylor A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453. 10.1037/fam0000191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gonzalez S, Rodriguez CM, & Paine E. (2022). Examining gender-specific modeling in the intergenerational transmission of parenting style and physical child abuse risk. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi. 10.1007/s10826-022-02232-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gordon AE, & Mickelson KD (2018). Couple-level predictors of perceived fairness during pregnancy in first-time parents. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 55–77. 10.1177/0192513X15594206 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gowda AS, & Rodriguez CM (2019). Gender role ideology in mothers and fathers: Relation with parent-child aggression risk longitudinally. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104087. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Greene CA, Haisley L, Wallace C, & Ford JD (2020). Intergenerational effects of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review of the parenting practices of adult survivors of childhood abuse, neglect, and violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 101891. 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gurian M. (2006). The wonder of boys: What parents, mentors and educators can do to shape boys into exceptional men. Penguin. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hallers-Haalboom ET, Groeneveld MG, van Berkel SR, Endendijk JJ, van der Pol LD, Bakermans- Kranenburg MJ, & Mesman J. (2016). Wait until your mother gets home! mothers’ and fathers’ discipline strategies. Social Development, 25(1), 82–98. 10.1111/sode.12130 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Helwig CC, To S, Wang Q, Liu C, & Yang S. (2014). Judgments and reasoning about parental discipline involving induction and psychological control in China and Canada. Child Development, 85(3), 1150–1167. 10.1111/cdev.12183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Huesmann LR. (2018). An integrative theoretical understanding of aggression: a brief exposition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 119–124. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Katz-Wise SL, Priess HA, & Hyde JS (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 18. 10.1037/a0017820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Khan F, Jamil F, & Khalid R. (2017). Parental modeling as predictor of filial obligation in young adults. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim HK, Pears KC, Fisher PA, Connelly CD, & Landsverk JA (2010). Trajectories of maternal harsh parenting in the first 3 years of life. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(12), 897–906. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kline RB (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  32. Laney EK, Hall MEL, Anderson TL, & Willingham MM (2015). Becoming a mother: The influence of motherhood on women’s identity development. Identity, 15(2), 126–145. 10.1080/15283488.2015.1023440 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lomanowska AM, Boivin M, Hertzman C, & Fleming AS (2017). Parenting begets parenting: A neurobiological perspective on early adversity and the transmission of parenting styles across generations. Neuroscience, 342, 120–139. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lo CK, Chan KL, & Ip P. (2019). Insecure adult attachment and child maltreatment: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(5), 706–719. 10.1177/1524838017730579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McKinney C, Brown K, & Malkin ML (2018). Parenting style, discipline, and parental psychopathology: Gender dyadic interactions in emerging adults. Journal of child and family studies, 27(1), 290–301. 10.1007/s10826-017-0865-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Meinck F, Steinert J, Sethi D, Gilbert R, Bellis M, Alink L, & Baban A. (2016). Measuring and monitoring national prevalence of child maltreatment: a practical handbook. http://hdl.handle.net/11212/3015 [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller ED (2013). Why the father wound matters: Consequences for male mental health and the father- son relationship. Child Abuse Review, 22(3), 194–208. 10.1002/car.2219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Milner JS (1994). Assessing physical child abuse risk: The Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 547–583. doi. 10.1016/0272-7358(94)90017-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Murray G, & Mulvaney MK (2012). Parenting styles, socialization, and the transmission of political ideology and partisanship. Politics & Policy, 40(6), 1106–1130. 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00395.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Neppl TK, Diggs ON, & Cleveland MJ (2020). The intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting, substance use, and emotional distress: Impact on the third-generation child. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(8), 852–863. 10.1037/adb0000551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nicholson JS, Howard KS, & Borkowski JG (2008). Mental Models for Parenting: Correlates of Metaparenting among Fathers of Young Children. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice about Men as Fathers, 6(1), 39–47,49–52,54–61. doi: 10.3149/fth.0601.39 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Niu H, Liu L, & Wang M. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of harsh discipline: The moderating role of parenting stress and parent gender. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 1–10. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reitman D, Rhode PC, Hupp SD, & Altobello C. (2002). Development and validation of the Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised. Journal of Psychological Behavioral Assessment, 24(2), 119–127. 10.1023/A:1015344909518 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, & Hart CH (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 819–830. 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rodriguez CM (2010). Parent-child aggression: Association with child abuse potential and parenting styles. Violence and Victims, 25, 728–741. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.6.728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rodriguez CM (2016). Parental discipline reactions to child noncompliance and compliance: Association with parent-child aggression indicators. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 25, 1363–1374. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0308-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rodriguez CM, & Richardson MJ (2007). Stress and anger as contextual factors and pre-existing cognitive schemas: Predicting parental child maltreatment risk. Child Maltreatment, 12, 325–337. 10.1177/1077559507305993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rodriguez CM, Smith TL, & Silvia PJ (2016). Parent-child aggression risk in expectant mothers and fathers: A multimethod theoretical approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3220–3235. doi. 10.1007/s10826-016-0481-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodriguez CM, Silvia PJ, & Gaskin RE (2019). Predicting maternal and paternal parent-child aggression risk: Longitudinal multimethod investigation using Social Information Processing theory. Psychology of Violence, 9, 370–382. doi. 10.1037/vio0000115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Schofield TJ, Conger RD, & Neppl TK (2014). Positive parenting, beliefs about parental efficacy, and active coping: three sources of intergenerational resilience. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 973. doi: 10.1037/fam0000024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Slagt M, Dubas JS, Deković M, & van Aken MA (2016). Differences in sensitivity to parenting depending on child temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(10), 1068. 10.1037/bul0000061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Smetana JG (2017). Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 19–25. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Finkelhor D, Moore DW, & Runyan D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249–270. 10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020). Child Maltreatment, 2018. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2018.
  55. van der Put CE, Hermanns J, van Rijn-van Gelderen L, & Sondeijker F. (2016). Detection of unsafety in families with parental and/or child developmental problems at the start of family support. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–13. 10.1186/s12888-016-0715-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans- Kranenburg MJ, Coughlan B, & Reijman S. (2020). Annual Research Review: Umbrella synthesis of meta- analyses on child maltreatment antecedents and interventions: differential susceptibility perspective on risk and resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 272–290. 10.1111/jcpp.13147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Yaffe Y. (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology, 1–14. 10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zolotor AJ, Theodore AD, Chang JJ, Berkoff MC, & Runyan DK (2008). Speak softly—and forget the stick: Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(4), 364–369. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES