New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Tame Your Inner Tiger

Controlling parents tend to have children who are academically above average but depressed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


All parents struggle to find the right balance between encouragement and discipline when it comes to raising their kids. This past winter Yale University law professor Amy Chua drew roars of protest when she asserted in her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, that successful parenting entails controlling most aspects of a child’s life, from prohibiting playdates and sleepovers to screaming at children for getting grades lower than an A. What does research say about this style of child-rearing?

“There’s no evidence that intrusiveness is appropriate in any culture we’ve been to before, including China,” says psychologist Brian K. Barber of the University of Tennessee Knoxville. To learn more about how psychological control might vary across the world, Barber and his colleagues interviewed 120 adolescents from five different cultures, including Costa Rica, Thailand and South Africa, and then surveyed another 2,100. Their findings, which they recently submitted to the Journal of Adolescence, suggest that some of the behavior described in Chua’s book, such as insulting kids (she once called her daughter “garbage”), invalidating their feelings and violating their privacy, correlated with children’s depression and antisocial behavior, a finding that matches past research.

Barber distinguishes “authoritarian” households—those that are overly coercive—from “authoritative” households, where strictness is accompanied by warmth and encouragement of self-direction. In a prior study of more than 20,000 U.S. high schoolers, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University and his colleagues found that children raised in authoritative households were typically psychologically healthy, whereas those raised in authoritarian ones had elevated anxiety and depression. Notably kids from both households got comparably good grades, suggesting tiger mothering isn’t necessary for excellence after all.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 304 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Tame Your Inner Tiger” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 304 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican042011-3zglnDjO10VK9ElE3tDEpi

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe