Pattens of Positive, Harsh, and Abusive Parenting in Low-Income Unmarried Families and Predictors in Dyadic Family System

Objectives: Parenting practices have consistently been correlated with child mental and behavioral problems. Abusive parenting and harsh parenting (i.e., less severe manifestation of abusive parenting and is generally not considered worthy of being reported) are closely associated with deleterious outcomes. Positive parenting typically leads to positive outcomes. Previous studies have often focused on one form of parenting approach. However, parents may adopt one or more parenting approaches. Additionally, prior research has typically concentrated on one parent, usually the mother, when investigating parenting approaches, neglecting to consider the family parenting pattern, including both the father and mother. This study aims to (1) uncover patterns of family (paternal and maternal) parenting patterns using a person-centered analytic approach and (2) identify predictors of subgroup membership.

Method: The Building Strong Family project is a multisite relationship skills education program aimed at unmarried couples with low incomes. The analytic sample for this study consisted of 4,040 couples. Abusive parenting was assessed using three items, such as "Hit [CHILD] on the bottom with a belt, hairbrush, or stick." Harsh parenting was measured using four items derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale: Parent-Child Version, for example, "Shout, yell or scream at [CHILD]" (Strauss et al., 1996). Positive parenting was evaluated using three items, such as "Explain to [CHILD] why something was wrong." Covariates included maternal and paternal demographic characteristics, depression, intimate partner violence (IPV), coparenting, and parenting stress. Latent class analysis was conducted using Mplus v.8 to identify family parenting pattern and the tree-step approach were used to examine the predictors.

Results: Latent class analysis revealed four distinct parenting patterns: both harsh/abusive parenting (56%), mother harsh/abusive parenting (15%), both positive parenting (9%), and father harsh/abusive parenting (19%). Across all classes, there was a high probability of using positive parenting (>90%). In both harsh/abusive parenting class, mother harsh/abusive parenting class, and father harsh/abusive parenting class, there was a co-occurrence of harsh parenting and abusive parenting, though with different probabilities. Compared to both harsh/abusive parenting class, families with fathers who experienced less IPV, and parenting stress were more likely to be in the mother harsh/abusive parenting class. Conversely, families with both fathers and mothers who experienced less IPV were more likely to be in both positive parenting class. Additionally, families with mothers who experienced less IPV and fathers who experienced less coparenting were more likely to be in the father harsh/abusive parenting class.

Conclusion: This study reveals a high prevalence of positive parenting practices across all low-income families. Our findings highlight distinct patterns of parenting approaches, encompassing varying levels of abusive, harsh, and positive parenting from both paternal and maternal perspectives. The findings underscore the importance of considering unique risk factors in predicting different group memberships. Prevention and intervention programs for families should involve both fathers and mothers, considering the family's parenting pattern. Practitioners may benefit from paying special attention to various family difficulties, such as IPV, parenting stress, and coparenting issues, within the context of their unique family parenting patterns.