Hulei et al. (2006)

Question 1

what are the underlying assumptions of cultural ecology?

Answer 1

• That human competence is culture-specific (the definition of a competent child and a competent parent varies from one culture to another)
• • Therefore, we should expect cultural differences in parenting practices (demonstrated in Hypothesis #1)
• • We should expect cultural-specific effects of parenting on children (demonstrated in Hypothesis #2)

Question 2

how does filial piety influence Chinese parenting?

Answer 2

Stresses importance of father-son relationship and the concept of the parent as a teacher → parents are responsible for their child’s character development and academic education

Question 3

3 dysfunctional parenting behaviours on the Parenting Scale (Arnold et al)

Answer 3

• Laxness: permissive discipline; parents don’t enforce rules when kids misbehave; give in or provide positive reinforcement
• Overreactivity: displaying anger, irritability, or meanness in response to kids’ misbehaviour; may spank or argue with kids when disciplining
• Verbosity: lengthy verbal responses from parents when child misbehaves; rely on talking when disciplining, even if it’s ineffective

Question 4

How are the 3 dysfunctional parenting styles (Arnold et al) similar to parenting styles identified by Baumrind?

Answer 4

• Laxness is consistent with permissive parenting
• Overreactivity is consistent with authoritarian parenting
• Verbosity has no parallel to any of Baumrind’s parenting styles

Question 5

Summarize Zevenbergen and Hu’s research findings

Answer 5

• When comparing Chinese immigrant mothers and European-American mothers, Chinese immigrant mothers were higher on verbosity and laxness → consistent with traditional views of childrearing (parents responsible for teaching/instructing)
• • This is basically the prediction in hypothesis 1 (replicates it); hypothesis 2 extends it; hypothesis 3 is unrelated

Question 6

why did the researchers of the current study (Hulei et al) predict that Chinese-American parents who were more accultured would predict less verbosity and laxness?

Answer 6

Because they would conform to the American culture rather than the Chinese culture

Question 7

what are the 3 hypotheses in the current study (Hulei et al)?

Answer 7

• Hypothesis 1: Cultural background → parental laxness + verbosity
• Hypothesis 2: Laxness + verbosity → cultural background (moderator) → behaviour problems (+)
• Hypothesis 3: Level of acculturation for Chinese-American mothers → laxness and verbosity (-)

Question 8

did Hulei et al find support for each of their hypotheses?

Answer 8

• Hypothesis 1: Yes - Chinese-American mothers scored higher on the verbosity and laxness subscale than European mothers
• Hypothesis 2: No - no significant relationship found between verbosity or laxness and behaviour problems (internal or external) in either group → indicates that this is perhaps a universal
• Hypothesis 3: No - no significant relationship found between acculturation and verbosity or laxness for Chinese American mothers

Question 9

What was the instrument used by Hulei et al to measure variables (like behavioural problems)

Answer 9

• The Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL)

- - behaviour problems identified using the Internalizing and Externalizing Problems scales

Question 10

How do the results of this study (Hulei) provide support for the cultural ecological model?

Answer 10

Because the researchers found differences in parenting behaviours between the two cultural groups, it supports the cultural ecological model’s idea that childrearing strategies aren’t absolute; they’re rooted in cultural beliefs (found evidence because of hyp 1, but couldn’t find evidence for hyp 2)

Question 11

Are the results of Hulei’s study consistent with the results of Arnold et al’s study? Why might this be?

Answer 11

• No; Arnold et al found that verbosity and laxness were related to behaviour problems in European-American families; in this study, no significant relationship was found in the Chinese-American or European-American sample
• • Proposed explanation for this: Arnold’s study used participants who had been referred to see a counsellor/clinical psychologist (as well as non-referred); this study only used non-referred participants → potentially only relevant for referred children