Image: iStockphoto/stevenfoley
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Are Chinese moms superior? That claim was suggested in a headline last week for a book excerpt in The Wall Street Journal by Yale University law professor and self-proclaimed "tiger mother" Amy Chua. It drew roars of anger from parenting experts and the Chinese-American community for its harsh parenting techniques, which included verbal denigrations and negative reinforcement, such as not permitting bathroom breaks or threats to destroy favorite toys until the child performed a musical composition flawlessly. The excerpt attracted numerous comments and responses such as "Parents like Amy Chua are the reason why Asian-Americans like me are in therapy."
Subsequent interviews with Chua suggest the excerpt from her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother might have distorted what she was trying to say. Still, might tiger mothers be good ones?
Weighing in is developmental psychologist Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, author of You and Your Adolescent: The Essential Guide for Ages 10-25, who has studied differences in parenting in the U.S. between whites, blacks, Latinos and Asian-Americans.
Are there any parenting lessons to be learned from tiger mother Amy Chua?
There are certainly elements in what she is espousing that have scientific evidence that they constitute good parenting. Kids need limits and structure, and it's good for parents to have high expectations for them—and if you want your kids to do well in school, you want to do things like getting involved in their schooling, having expectations of success and praising them when they do well.
On the other hand, the downside to what she is advocating, if I understand her correctly, is that if parenting becomes too authoritarian—and by that I mean overly restrictive, overly punitive, squelching any attempt by the child at independence or autonomy—those parenting practices have been shown to be related to elevated anxiety, depression and psychosomatic problems. Kids raised in those circumstances are less self-assured and socially poised, and more compliant.
Is there any scientific support for Chua's methods? She suggests that her intense parenting brought academic success to her two daughters.
Some of what is advocated in the tiger mothering book is consistent with good science, but some of it isn't. Also, it seems hardly a surprise to me that the children of two Yale law professors did well in school, and one might ask if that would have happened however they were raised. For her to claim that her children turned out the way they did because of the way they were raised seemed like a stretch.
What do you think of the parenting techniques Chua described—for instance, not letting her kids watch TV?
I know of no evidence that TV is in and of itself harmful for children—it depends on what they watch and how much they watch. I can certainly understand placing limits, but I don't see any point banning television or any other kind of medium.
Chua also said that she called one of her daughters "garbage" when she felt she was being disrespected.
There's no evidence that belittling or demeaning children in an insulting way is good for them. There are certainly ways to criticize and shape children's behavior that is not that harsh or punitive.
What do you think is the strongest element in favor of tiger mothering?
A point she's trying to make where I would agree is not cultivating a false sense of self-esteem. I'm not aligned with parents who think that no matter what children do, it's wonderful. I think kids should be praised for genuine accomplishment.
In your research, what did you find to be the differences in parenting in the U.S. among blacks, whites, Latinos, and Asian-Americans?
We studied more than 20,000 high school students from all ethnic backgrounds from nine different U.S. schools. Kids raised in authoritarian households got grades comparable to kids from what we called authoritative households, where you had strictness accompanied by warmth and encouragement of self-direction. Authoritative parents also had children who had friends, were more self-assured, and were psychologically healthy. That was pretty much the case across ethnic groups.
What differences did you see in authoritarianism across parents?
We saw more rates of authoritarianism in non-white groups. I think the percentage of authoritarian households was highest in Asian-Americans.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentVictory? At what cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink this analysis is balanced and well written. I am a Filipino-Canadian mum who raised 5 kids (with my husband)and who was a stay-at-home during our 15+ stay in Vancouver, BC. We can identify with Amy Chua (who was raised by Chinese-Filipino immigrant parents) but I don't think we were as authoritarian when it came to academic success. We have been strict on other issues like concern for the less fortunate and vulnerable, zero tolerance for any kind of aggression and EQ. The brood turned out fine: EQ and academic/work success-wise: a Univ. of Waterloo computer engineer in a Univ of Toronto PhD program; a marketing director with a BA from Mount Holyoke where the youngest is also a freshman; a Neuroscience & Biology grad from U-Mich doing volunteer work in SA before med school; and a Sports Science major from the Univ. of the Philippines--all on hefty scholarships because we could have NEVER afforded it. But then there are also the genetic components...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this is a 'science' discussion and setting, I would suggest that we need to apply a little more rigour to this topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly is meant here by 'academic success' ? the highest grades ? .. or entering the career of choice, or the career bringing most earnings, or most happiness ?
Where does reasonable strictness stop and authoritarian bullying begin ?
What is the basis for 'academic success' being deemed a good idea ? Is it career earnings, ability to care for the parents, happiness ?
Too much subjectivity does nothing for the value of a potentially valuable discussion.
This wasn't meant to be an in-depth analysis of the science of child rearing. All articles on SA are meant to be 10,000 foot views of a topic. It's up to the reader to do more in-depth research using the article as a starting point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, yeah, I can't think of any other definition for "academic success" than "high grades". The items in your second question are about "career success".
I definitely prefer research studies to anecdotes or personal stories but there is a bit of what seems to be helpful common sense ideas when it comes to parenting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end I don't think there can be a 'rule book' on how to parent your kids. For instance, if one of 'tiger mom's' kids was slightly mentally handicapped, would she still demand and expect the same from her as she did of her other child? Somehow, I think not (hope not at least). Then where would this book be? And if she was still just as demanding, would it be considered child abuse?
Setting rules/certain expectations (like doing well in school) and following up is proven to be successful. It also is common sense.
I can understand the need to be tough but that is very different than being mean. I can understand that sometimes you may choose to place your child in a stressful situation to help teach them how to perfom in such situations but that is alot different than threatening a child with harsh consequences for failure.
Just my two cents worth. BTW, I won't be reading that book.
So, since I was a very permissive and lenient parent, by HER criteria my children should be total losers. Odd it is, that all three turned out exceptional, in both their professional lives and in their sense of hard earned self esteem and self confidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is a successful business woman, one a top ranked software engineer(with Apple) and one (a national honors graduate) veterinarian. They all worked their way through school and two graduated with honors.
,,,maybe it was all in their genes,,,
Gary 7
Chua sounds like a real self serving scumbag. So she wrote a book glorifying her self. Oh yay! One thing seriously missing here is an analysis from an impartial observer of how her children are doing in their adult life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing this does explain is why the Asian suicide rate is so much higher than that of European ancestry people. Children do need limits but treating them like slaves is barbaric at best. My children were given requirements that they needed to meet to get rewards but they were never denied basic life requirements such as food or bathroom breaks.
I really wonder about the maturity level of anyone that calls any child "garbage". Really? That is the best you can do? Instead of insulting the child in an abusive manner why not discuss why that behavior is unacceptable. It always worked with my kids and there was no need to be abusive. When they were 4 years old such a discussion was pretty simplistic but we still got results without being mean. My children thought we were mean of course. That is, until they saw what we were protecting them from and what some other parents were like.
I'm also concerned about anyone that tries to suggest that all children are the same and can be treated identically to get identical results. We had to adopt two very different parenting styles for my sons. One is very stubborn and had to be carefully guided to doing what was best so that he was the one thinking up what he should do and why. The other is much more success and academics oriented and we actually had to encourage him to not overload himself. These are not conflicting or opposed parenting styles but they are different, with different focuses.
As it turns out she appeared on US television last night in an interview, of which I saw about 3 minutes, and she claimed that the characterisation and quotes from her book were totally and utterly misleading. She appears to have written an introduction inside the book that reflected her own upbringing and the attitudes of her parents and she spoke about writing it in a humourous way that the media took literally. She says her book does NOT support or suggest this method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't read it and don't intend to but I thought I should post this comment as a balance.
I still don't like SciAm covering stories that have no scientific content. It just lowers the standards and puts it in the same category as some other less rigorous publications. Just my opinion. Anecdotes are fine for coffee discussions, but they are worthless without some basis in measurement, definition, research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting, in a Scientific American chat, that science is not discussed. All that has been said about this authoritarian style applies to our current model of teaching science in America. Because of this non-questioning, non-experimental style of teaching, we have very few (almost none) students in this country who want to go into science. The only reason that we have big chemistry and biology classes in this country is because of pre-med students, who are the archetypal memorizing student who really hates science. The sense of exploration and discovery has left our educational system. The only thing we care about is how well students do on standardized exams. I set on the admissions board for a medical school and 95% of the students that make the first cut for admission can not describe an amino acid. These are students that have "A" in both organic chemistry and biochemistry. They are great at memorizing but do not know how to think. Most of you have probably seen the recent article stating that our college grads don't learn much in college. That is the authoritarian model in action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think many of you seem to be missing the point of Chua's book. Her book is not so much advocacy for a borderline tyrannical style of parenting; it's her story about what she herself learned by taking that path. It reveals the growth that she, as a parent, experienced over the course of raising two daughters. The first was on-board with the idea, but the second rebelled as a teenager. Chua reevaluated her stance and became more lenient, realizing that the level of strictness she used was not conducive to her younger daughter's growth. Chua felt that her parents' authoritarian way of bringing her up was a sign of love (they had high expectations of her, thus empowering her to fulfill those expectations), but that didn't work when she was raising her own children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, the book is about the notion that one parenting style doesn't work with all children, and ultimately neither typically "Western" or "Eastern" technique is absolutely right. Kids need some level of structure and focus, but they also need to play and have fun.
Anecdotally, I want to say that my parents are Indian, and thus have some semblance to "tiger parents," although with some leniency. They made sure my sister and I were focused on studying, and only after our homework was done could we have our fun. For example, in the summer, we weren't allowed to play outside until we did a certain amount of studying each day: do a page of math problems, spend a half-hour reading a science book, remember a list of spelling words, whatever. My parents created these assignments for us so that my sister and I would stay sharp over the summer, and we'd go into the next year of school being ahead of the others. This also gave my sister and me incentive to work hard and work quickly: The sooner we finished our "homework", the sooner we could go outside and play with the other kids. My fondest memories of the summer were the times I'd rush outside when I heard the ice-cream truck, or the Super Soaker fights my cousins and I would have. I never felt like my childhood was lacking in fun, and I still did very well in school.
This isn't scientific by any stretch, but parenting never is. It's trial and error, and what worked for us won't work for every other child.
Some strict parents give the excuse that they are preparing their children for life. The children would be better prepared if they see their homes as a place to rest from the daily problems, and not a place to find new problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, imagine a mother who lets her son feel cold at home, so that he won't feel cold outside. Indeed, he won't. However, the day this kid feels that he needs a warm place to rest, he won't have it; so, he might feel loneliness and depression. Now, if this same mother always makes her kid warm and confortable at home, he will be much less prepared for the bitter cold, but the day he is sad and needs something to cheer him up, he knows he can just go his warm home.
Sorry for using such a bad example, but the point I want to make is that children who are "spoiled" at home might be less prepared for life, but they know where to run if they need help, and that will make them feel less lonely and more loved; and therefore, happier. I'd rather have a happy kid than a academic successful one.
If you want your kids to do well in authoritarian schools, in compulsive-neurotic societies, with high rates of suicide and drug/alcohol abuse, and where the adults organize towards aggressive wars and crushing repression of minorities, then this is a good first-step method. Anybody care to mention the Logai slave-labor death camps in this ideal society the Chinese are today suffering under? The punishments meted out to anyone who shows non-conforming thought or behavior? Just go a few steps further down the path and you have the Hitler Youth, the Young Pioneers, or the methods of raising young Japanese during the period of the God-Emperor. This article only goes to show how degenerate has Big Science become, and how media writers schooled in "science journalism" haven't any capacity for critical thinking or interest to research a subject outside the boundaries of mainstream dictates. Not one word on the cross-cultural work of Prescott or DeMeo ('Saharasia') which showed exactly the opposite of its conclusions! And with a cultural sample size of over a thousand! Why this chronic excluding of studies which go against authoritarianism in society, but always including everything, no matter how poorly constructed, which supports the "existing order of things"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this